DRAFT**************DRAFT*************DRAFT*************DRAFT*************DRAFT
CONSERVATION PLAN
FOR THE
SACRAMENTO MOUNTAINS CHECKERSPOT
BUTTERFLY
(Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti)
Developed cooperatively by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Southwest Region
Otero County
The Village of Cloudcroft
U.S. Forest Service – Lincoln National Forest
October 7, 2004
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Recommended Literature Citation:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 2004. Draft Conservation Plan for the
Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti).
Albuquerque, New Mexico. 71pp.
Additional Copies can be obtained from:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Southwest Regional Office - Endangered Species Division
P.O. Box 1306
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
ph (505) 248-6920
fax (505) 248-8766
http://ifw2es.fws.gov
Cover Photo Credit:
Judy Bunn, Cloudcroft, New Mexico
Acknowledgments
We greatly appreciate the numerous individuals who contributed to the
conservation of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly and development of
this plan. Biologists who deserve credit for significant data contributions include
Julie McIntyre, Danney Salas, Rene Guaderrama, Eric Hein, John Pittenger, and
Steve Cary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff who contributed significantly to the
development of this plan include Dr. Stuart C. Leon, Julie McIntyre, Sarah E.
Rinkevich, and Tracy A. Scheffler. Michael Nivison, Ed Bunn, Gary Wood, Frank
Martinez, Johnny Wilson, Rene Guaderrama, Danney Salas, and Larry Cosper
assisted on the development of conservation measures. Dan Bryant assisted with
the development of the Memorandum of Understanding.
2
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti)
Conservation Plan (Conservation Plan) provides guidance for the conservation and
management of this species. The checkerspot butterfly is found only in high
elevation mountain-meadows within the Sacramento Mountains of central New
Mexico. On September 6, 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
proposed to list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly as endangered
with critical habitat. Habitat loss from proposed development, stochastic events
such as drought and wildfire, and threats from collection were stated as the reasons
for the proposed listing. Due to a paucity of data on population trend, no evidence
of a decline was stated. Since the publication of the proposed rule, there have been
reductions in the severity of certain threats to the butterfly. For example, the
Village of Cloudcroft has curtailed development outward into butterfly meadow
habitat.
Interest by local parties to proactively address conservation needs of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly prompted several meetings in
Cloudcroft to develop a conservation strategy for this species. Representatives from
Federal agencies and local governments prepared this Conservation Plan. A
Memorandum of Understanding was signed by these parties to confirm
commitments to the implementation of this Conservation Plan. The planned actions
in this Conservation Plan are organized in a step-down format used by the USFWS
in recovery plans.
3
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly feeding on sneezeweed nectar in
Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico. Photo by Julie McIntyre.
4
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................3
I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................6
A. Purpose and Goal ...................................................................................................................................6
B. Objectives of this Conservation Plan.....................................................................................................7
II. BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS............................................................................8
A. Taxonomy ...............................................................................................................................................8
B. Description .............................................................................................................................................8
C. Habitat...................................................................................................................................................10
D. Life Cycle.............................................................................................................................................. 11
E. Distribution ......................................................................................................................................... .13
F. Population Estimates......................................................................................................................... ..14
G. Population Structure .......................................................................................................................... ..16
III. STATUS AND THREATS................................................................................................................. ..20
A. Destruction, Modification, or Fragmentation of Habitat .................................................................. .20
B. Over-utilization for Commercial, Recreation, Science, or Education - Collecting .......................... ..38
C. Disease or Predation......................................................................................................................... ...39
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms............................................................................ ....39
E. Other Natural Factors Affecting the Species...................................................................................... 40
IV. CONSERVATION STRATEGY.......................................................................................................... 43
A. Cooperators........................................................................................................................................... 43
B. Conservation Actions ............................................................................................................................ 44
C. Funding................................................................................................................................................. 45
D. Adaptive Management and Monitoring .............................................................................................. 47
E. Research .............................................................................................................................................. 48
F. Stepdown Outline of Conservation Actions........................................................................................ 49
G. Narrative Outline for Conservation Actions....................................................................................... 52
V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .................................................................................................... 61
VI. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 66
VII. LITERATURE CITED....................................................................................................................... 69
FIGURES
Figure 1. Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.......................................................................... 9
Figure 2. Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.......................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Post-diapause caterpillar ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Pupal case .................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 5. Butterfly habitat in Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico ................................................... 10
Figure 6. Butterfly habitat in Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico ....................................................10
Figure 7. New Mexico penstemon, Penstemon neomexicanus ............................................................. .11
Figure 8. Orange sneezeweed, Helenium hoopesii ................................................................................. 11
5
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti) is
a high elevation, mountain meadow butterfly endemic to the Sacramento
Mountains, located in south-central New Mexico. On September 6, 2001, the
USFWS proposed to list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly as
endangered with critical habitat under the authority of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq.). This species’ known range is
within a 9.7 kilometer (km) or 6 mile (mi) radius around the Village of Cloudcroft,
New Mexico, in open meadows within mixed-conifer forest at elevations between
2440 to 2740 meters (m) or 8000 to 9000 feet (ft). The species is proposed
endangered due to habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, stochastic events
such as drought and wildfire, and over-collection.
In January 2004, local, regional, and Federal representatives began collaboration on
a plan to protect the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly and conserve the
species’ limited habitat. The USFWS formed the collaborative working group in
response to new information about the species and its habitat, reductions in the
severity and imminence of certain threats since the publication of the September 6,
2001, proposed rule to list the butterfly, and interest by local parties to proactively
address conservation needs of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
This Conservation Plan for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
represents a collaborative effort between Federal agencies and local governments.
The most current information on the butterfly’s life history, habitat needs, and
status has been assembled. A comprehensive discussion of the known threats to
this species is included. Conservation measures have been developed for the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly with an accompanying
implementation schedule. The general approach is a combination of protection of
both occupied meadow habitats as well as meadow habitat that is unoccupied but
that has the vegetational attributes important to the butterfly. Following an
adaptive management concept, this Conservation Plan may be modified as needed
in response to management, monitoring, and research data. Yearly meetings are
planned with the partners and all other interested parties pursuant to the
Memorandum of Understanding (see Appendix A).
A. Purpose and Goal
The primary purpose of the Conservation Plan is to develop, coordinate, and
implement conservation actions to alleviate known threats to the Sacramento
6
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Mountains checkerspot butterfly. The goal of the plan is to manage occupied and
unoccupied habitat on both public and private lands. In addition, the plan
identifies information gaps that need to be addressed to inform long-term
conservation and management. After reviewing the species’ life history, habitat
requirements, and threats, the plan identifies the specific conservation measures,
agreed upon by participating parties and signatories, which will be taken to achieve
the goal.
B. Objectives of this Plan
Conservation measures needed for the continued existence of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly focus on four primary objectives. In order to
alleviate known threats to the species, the conservation measures must:
1. Eliminate the present destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species
habitat or range, and identify and implement measures to curb and control
future threats to the species and its habitat;
2. Ensure that over-utilization of the species for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes does not occur;
3. Ensure adequate protection of the species through agreements and regulatory
measures.
4. Continue to support research, public outreach, and education.
7
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
II. BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
A. Taxonomy
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti
(Ferris & R. W. Holland), is a member of the brush-footed butterfly family
(Nymphalidae) within the subfamily Melitaeinae (checkerspots and fritillaries).
The E. chalcedona complex, or ‘variable checkerspots’, a group distributed across
western North America, currently consists of three distinct species, E. chalcedona,
E. colon, and E. anicia, and 38 subspecies (Ferris & Brown 1981, Glassberg 2001).
The subspecies E. a. cloudcrofti was first described as Occidryas anicia cloudcrofti
by Ferris and Holland in 1980, based on 162 adult specimens collected at the Pines
campground, 1.6 km (1 mi) northeast of Cloudcroft (Ferris & Holland 1980).
Subspecies are differentiated based on wing shape and coloration, the morphology of
male genitalia, and host plant selection (Holdren & Ehrlich 1982, Austin et al.
2003). According to Ferris and Holland (1980), the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot is most closely related to E. anicia chuskae (Ferris & R. W. Holland), a
subspecies found above 2288 m (7500 ft) in the Chuska Mountains of northwestern
New Mexico. The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly appears to have
been geographically isolated from sister taxa during climate changes following the
Pleistocene era, resulting in the unique phenotypic variation and local adaptation
present in the subspecies today (Pittenger & Yori 2003).
B. Description
Adult Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies have a wingspan of
approximately 5 centimeters (cm) or 2 inches (in). The dorsal (top) sides of the
wings are checkered with dark brown, red, orange, white, and black spots and lines
(Figure 1). Markings on the ventral (bottom) sides of the wings resemble the dorsal
sides, with alternating orange and cream-colored checkered bands outlined in black.
The body is black with rust-colored hairs on the head and whitish hairs on the
thorax (middle segment containing the legs) (Figure 2). The abdomen is black with
light horizontal stripes and a circle of yellowish hairs at the end of the abdomen.
Females tend to be slightly larger than males, and the female abdomen is more
rounded in shape compared to the tapered male abdomen. The antennae are tipped
with yellow-orange clubs, the legs are orange, and the eyes are brown (Glassberg
2001). Prediapause larvae of the butterfly (the August to October larval stage
before the winter inactive phase) range from 0.5 to 1.0 cm (0.2 to 0.4 in) in length
and change from bare, brownish larvae to wooly, black caterpillars with orange
hairs. Post-diapause larvae (larvae that emerge in the spring after the hibernation
stage) are larger caterpillars, with an average length 1.8 cm (0.7 in), a minimum
length of 1.3 cm (0.5 in), and a maximum length of 2.5 cm (1.0 in) (Pittenger & Yori
8
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
2003). Caterpillars are marked with black, linear patterns, orange spots, and black,
bristly tubercles protruding from a smooth, cream-colored body (Figure 3). The
pupal case, or chrysalis, has a striking pattern of symmetrical black, rust-colored,
and yellow marks upon a whitish background and is approximately 1.5-2.0 cm (0.6-
0.8 in) long and 0.8 cm (0.3 in) wide (Figure 4). Chrysalises generally are attached
to a stiff vertical structure ranging from 25 cm (1 ft) to 175 cm (7 ft) above the
substrate, although they are rarely encountered.
Figure 1. Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. Photo by J. McIntyre.
Figure 2. Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly. Photo by J.
McIntyre.
Figure 3. Post-diapause caterpillar. Photo by
J. McIntyre.
Figure 4. Pupal case. Photo by J.
McIntyre.
9
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
C. Habitat
Known records indicate that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
inhabits meadows within the upper montane and subalpine mixed-conifer forest
(Lower Canadian Zone) at an elevation between 2,380 and 2,750 m (7,800 and 9,000
ft) in the vicinity of the Village of Cloudcroft, Otero County, New Mexico (Figures 5-
6). The adult butterfly is often found in association with the larval food plants, New
Mexico penstemon (Penstemon neomexi anus Wooton and Standley) and valerian
(Valeriana edulis Nutt.), and adult nectar sources such as orange sneezeweed
(Helenium hoopesii Gray, also named Hymenoxys hoopesii). Specialist insects, such
as the Sacramento Mountain checkerspot butterfly, typically are highly selective of
oviposition (egg-laying) sites and larval food sources, and are not known to survive
far from their host plants (Janz 2003). P. neomexicanus, the primary host plant, is
a narrowly endemic perennial forb (Sivinski & Knight 1996) (Figure 7). It grows in
south-central New Mexico, within Lincoln and Otero counties, in the Capitan and
Sacramento Mountains (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council Website 2002).
Throughout its range, the species is common and relatively abundant (Pittenger &
Yori, 2002). V. edulis may be a secondary larval host plant, particularly in early
spring if environmental conditions have not been favorable for growth of P.
neomexicanus (Weiss et al. 1988). Consistent with the role of a secondary host
plant, V. edulis has been used as a food resource in the spring by post-diapause
larvae, but eggs have not been found in association with V. edulis (eggs are
generally found only with the primary host plant) (E. Hein USFWS, pers. comm.
2004).
c
Figure 5. Butterfly habitat in Lincoln
National Forest, New Mexico. Photo by J.
McIntyre.
Figure 6. Butterfly habitat in Lincoln
National Forest, New Mexico. Photo by J.
McIntyre.
The preferred adult food is nectar from sneezeweed, (H. hoopesii), a native
perennial forb that flowers from mid-June through August, with the appearance of
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Figure 8). Although the flowers
of H. hoopesii are most frequently used by adults for nectar, the Sacramento
10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Mountains checkerspot butterfly has been observed sipping nectar at other plants
including: New Mexico elder (Sambucus cerulea), yellow salsify (Tragopogon
dubius), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), spike verbena (Verbena
macdougalii), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), figwort (Scrophularia montana),
short-rayed coneflower (Ratibida tagetes), cutleaf coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata),
musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Arizona rose (Rosa woodsii), Wheeler’s wallflower
(Erysimum capitatum), and wild onion (Allium spp.) (Pittenger & Yori 2003, G.
Wood photo 2004, J. McIntyre, pers. obs. 2004). Other plants that have been
documented in butterfly habitat include: arrowleaf groundsel (Senecia triangularis),
curly-cup gumplant (Grindelia squarrosa), figworts (Scrophularia sp.), penstemon
(Penstemon sp.), skyrocket (Ipomopsis aggregata), and milkweed (Asclepias sp.),
(Forest Service 1999d).
Figure 7. New Mexico penstemon Penstemon
neomexicanus Photo by J. McIntyre.
Figure 8. Orange sneezeweed Helenium
hoopesii Photo by J. McIntyre.
A survey of ground cover characteristics associated with habitats occupied by
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly post-diapause larvae found a
relationship of 37% vegetation, 33% bare ground, 25% litter, 3% rock, and 2% P.
neomexicanus (Pittenger & Yori 2003). The vegetation cover in this survey
consisted mainly of grasses (18% of the total ground cover) (Pittenger & Yori 2003).
Precise soil associations for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly are
unknown. Based on field observations, P. neomexicanus prefers well-drained,
sandy to rocky loams that are situated just above drainage areas, whereas H.
hoopesii tends to be found in more mesic soils occurring at the bottom of drainages.
D. Life Cycle
The life cycle of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is usually
univoltine, producing a maximum of one generation of adults per year under
favorable conditions (E. Hein, pers. comm. 2004). If environmental conditions are
not conducive to completing the life cycle, larvae can remain in an inactive state
(diapause) for more than one year (E. Hein, pers. comm. 2004). Individual adults
11
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
live up to 14 days within a 4 to 6 week flight period between June and August (E.
Hein, pers. comm. 2004). The emergence of adult butterflies from pupation is
staggered during the flight season, with peak emergence in the second week of
flight (USFWS 2001). Males typically eclose (emerge as a butterfly after pupation)
prior to females. Females are mated within days after their emergence, usually on
the first day of emergence for other Euphydryas species (Ehrlich et al. 1975,
USFWS 2003). Oviposition for Sacramento Mountain checkerspot butterflies has
been recorded only on the primary host plant, P. neomexicanus. Typically, a cluster
of 10-100 eggs is laid on the underside of a P. neomexicanus leaf in July or August.
A female butterfly can lay 2-3 sets of eggs in her lifetime, but the majority of eggs
fail to reach adulthood (White 1986, Erhlich & Hanski 2004). After about 10 days,
larvae hatch, cluster together, form a larval tent (communal webs spun by larvae)
and consume the host plants. Throughout the 1st through 4th larval instars
(growth phases between molts), larvae feed on host plants close to the larval tent
and are referred to as pre-diapause larvae.
Between September and October, half-grown larvae in the 4th or 5th instar enter
an obligatory and extended diapause, generally as the food plants die back in the
fall from freezing. The diapause stage is similar to hibernation, involving a
decrease in metabolism and a thickening of the skin, enabling the resting larvae to
survive winter conditions without feeding or becoming dessicated. Exact diapause
locations are unknown; however, distances of travel from the larval tent to diapause
sites are probably restricted due to the small size and slow movement of the pre-diapause
larvae. It is speculated that diapause larvae remain in leaf or grass litter
near the base of shrubs, under the bark of conifers, or in the loose soils associated
with pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) mounds (Moore 1989, E. Hein, pers. comm.
2004). Diapausing larvae of other Euphydryas species have been observed curled
up beneath rocks or sticks, and wrapped in a light webbing (USFWS 2003).
In early spring (March-April) diapause is broken and larvae (now post-diapause
larvae) locate and feed on P. neomexicanus and possibly V. edulis as they grow
through three to four more instars before pupating (entering the inactive stage
within a chrysalis). Two to three months later, adults eclose from pupation in mid-summer
(June-July). Triggers to begin and end larval diapause and pupation are
unclear, but may involve photoperiod, moisture, temperature, and chemical cues.
For Euphydryas species, the timing of life cycle events with plant phenology
(flowering periods, in response to climatic and genetic cues) is crucial to the survival
of the butterfly (Ehrlich & Murphy 1987). Larval and pupal development, in
tandem with host plant growth, establish the phase relationship among adult
butterfly flight, oviposition, and host plant senescence. This chronology, in turn,
determines future food plant availability and mortality rates of prediapause larvae
later in the season. Consequently, highest survivorship occurs when the
developmental stages of Euphydryas species and their oviposition plants, larval
12
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
hosts, and nectar plants exist within the same phase, in spite of climate variability
from year to year (Weiss et al. 1988). Interaction between macroclimate and
microclimate mediates much of this phase relationship and microclimate varies
with slope and exposure of the terrain (Ehrlich & Murphy 1987). Thus, for the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly population, habitat diversity is very
important for capturing optimal conditions where phase relationships can be
synchronized in time and space in response to changing environmental conditions.
E. Distribution
The extent of the historical range of the butterfly is not known due to limited
information collected on this subspecies prior to its description (Ferris & Holland
1980). Earliest documented collections of the butterfly were made in 1963 at Pines
Campground, the type locality for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly,
1.6 km (1 mi) northeast of Cloudcroft at 2622 m (8600 ft) in elevation (Toliver et al.
1994). Due to their conspicuous nature, butterflies in the genus Euphydryas are
widely collected and well studied, and are known to be restricted to specific habitats
(Ehrlich et al. 1975, Cullenward et al. 1979, Murphy & Weiss 1988). Over the last
forty years, lepidopterists have surveyed and collected throughout the Sacramento
Mountains within suitable habitat and have not located the species outside of the
currently occupied locations (Ferris & Holland 1980, Cary & Holland 1992, Toliver
et al. 1994, Hager & Stafford 1999, Forest Service 2003).
As of October, 2004, the known range of the butterfly is within a 6-mile radius
around the Village of Cloudcroft, spanning an area of 85 square km (33 sq mi). The
butterfly occurs on lands administered by the Sacramento Ranger District of the
Lincoln National Forest as well as private lands. Within this area, the butterfly’s
distribution is patchy and disjunct. The known range of the butterfly is delimited
on the north by Mescalero Apache Nation lands, on the west by Bailey Canyon at
the mouth of Mexican Canyon, on the east by Spud Patch Canyon, and on the south
by Cox Canyon (Forest Service 2000a, 2000d).
To estimate the extent of existing Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
habitat, the FS devised a model using survey results and a Geographic Information
System (GIS)(Forest Service 1999b). The model incorporated non-forested openings
visible on 1:24,000 scale orthophoto quadrangles, preferred elevational ranges
(2440-2744 m or 8000-9000 ft), and known occupied locales. Based on the model,
the Forest Service estimated there are approximately 2,104 hectares (ha) or 5,198
acres (ac) of potential habitat (1 hectare is equal to 2.5 acres). Potential butterfly
habitat is roughly evenly divided between private lands (1,034 ha or 2,553 ac) and
Forest Service lands (1,070 ha or 2,645 ac) (Forest Service 1999a, 1999b, 1999d,
2000a, 2000d). To ground-truth the model and estimate the current range of the
butterfly, extensive surveys for larvae and adult butterflies were conducted within
and outside of the modeled potential butterfly habitat during the butterfly’s seasons
13
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
of activity each year between 1997 and 1999 (Forest Service 1999b, 1999d, 2000a,
2000d, Custard 2003). These surveys documented that the distribution of the
butterfly within the known range is discontinuous and generally located in non-forested
openings along drainages, roadways, campgrounds, and valleys. According
to GIS maps and the model provided by the Forest Service, about 46 of 202 ha (114
of 498 ac) and 240 of 813 ha (592 of 2,010 ac) of suitable habitat surveyed during
1998 and 1999, respectively, were occupied by the butterfly. Based on these data,
it appears that 15 to 35 % of suitable habitat is currently used by the butterfly.
Thus, an estimated 316 to 736 ha (780 to 1,819 ac) of the potentially suitable 2,104
ha (5,198 ac) are currently used by the butterfly.
F. Population Estimates
In addition to defining the actual range of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly, the Forest Service surveys are also directed at counting actual numbers of
individuals to understand population dynamics. Four types of population data have
been gathered: 1) observational data, or the number of total observations of larvae,
larval tents, and adults, combining all areas per year (1997-2003) (Forest Service
2003); 2) plot data, or the number of larval tents and number of adults counted in
established plots in each locality (1999-2003) (Forest Service 2003); 3) mark-release-recapture
sampling, where adults are captured, marked, and released and then
sampled twice again at 12 day intervals to calculate residence rates and population
growth rates (2002 only) (Pittenger & Yori 2003); and 4) transect data to estimate
adult population density (2000-2002) (Pittenger & Yori 2003).
Using the observational method, in 1997 and 1998, there were sightings of 595
adults and 114 larval tents (communal webs that contain larvae) at 15 general
localities. Observational surveys in 1999 documented 1,629 adults, 26 post-diapause
larvae, 800 pre-diapause larvae, and an unknown number of larval tents
at generally the same localities (Forest Service 1999a 1999b, 1999d, Pittenger
1999). Surveys during 2000 documented approximately 1,000 adults, 26 post-diapause
larvae, and 157 larval tents (Forest Service 2000a, 2000d). No new
butterfly localities were documented during the 2000 field season, although the
known range of the butterfly was expanded slightly (Forest Service 2000d). The
Forest Service also conducted surveys on 231 ha (570 ac) within the Smokey Bear
Ranger District, north of the Mescalero Apache Nation, during 1999, but no
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies were documented at this location
(Forest Service 2000a).
In 1999, the Forest Service established permanent plots in 10 localities (Bailey
Canyon, Cloudcroft Horse Pasture, Cloudcroft Yard, Cox Canyon, Deerhead
Canyon, Pines Campground, Pumphouse Canyon, Silver Springs Canyon, Sleepy
Grass Canyon, and Spud Patch Canyon). These plots allow for standardized
sampling with results that can be compared in the same location from year to year.
14
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Total larval tent numbers tallied from each set of plots reveal a decreasing trend in
larval tent numbers from 1999 to 2003. Collective surveys from plots within all
sites found 139 larval tents in 1999, 138 tents in 2000, 65 tents in 2001, 74 tents in
2002, 52 tents in 2003, and 46 tents in fall of 2004 (Forest Service 2003, D. Salas,
pers. comm. 2004). Several interpretations can be reached from this data: (1) the
trend may be indicative of a declining butterfly population; (2) the butterfly
population may be fluctuating in response to the drought of the past several years,
and may increase in response to the more moist conditions of this past year, or more
favorable conditions in the future; (3) some tents have disintegrated due to the large
amounts of rain and hail received in butterfly habitat between August and October
of 2004, but the larvae could still be persisting in other tents or habitat crevices; (4)
monitoring methods allow for only the number of tents per visit, thus missing tent
turnover which could involve more tents than are being counted; and (5) because P.
neomexicanus tends to grow in broadly-spaced clusters within the habitat, plots
established in 1999 may no longer be capturing P. neomexicanus patches if they
gradually move over time. Adult survey data for 2002 detected 60 butterflies within
plots only (Forest Service 2003). In 2003, the Forest Service tallied a total of 222
adults, both within sampling plots and immediately surrounding sampling plots
(Forest Service 2003). Adult surveys in 2004 of the same plots revealed 221
butterflies (D. Salas, pers. com. 2004). Data from the observation or plot sampling
methods have not provided a basis for estimates of actual population size, because
methods have been inconsistent and no formal population estimation procedures
have been used with these data.
Mark-release data were collected only in 2002 on sunny to partly cloudy, windless
days over a span of three weeks from June 28 to July 23. None of the 232 total
marked Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butteflies were found to have moved
between sites and only 4 butterflies had moved to different meadows within sites
(Pittenger & Yori 2003). Of the nine sites sampled during the flight season, marked
checkerspots were recaptured at two sites: Pumphouse Canyon and Spud Patch
Canyon. No marked butterflies were found at Apache Canyon, Bailey Canyon,
South Fork La Luz Canyon, Pines Campground, Silver Springs Canyon, Zinker
Canyon, or Forks Tank Canyon sites in 2002 (Pittenger & Yori 2003).
At Pumphouse Canyon, from a total of 130 adult individuals marked from 28 June
through 23 July, 2002, 35 individuals, or 27%, were recaptured (Pittenger & Yori
2003). From these data, the peak population at one time in Pumphouse Canyon
was estimated to be 127 individuals (Pittenger & Yori 2003). Thirty-one
individuals, or 89%, of the number recaptured remained at the meadow site and
four individuals, or 11%, had moved into different meadows within Pumphouse
Canyon (Pittenger & Yori 2003). The four individuals that dispersed to different
meadows moved across distances ranging from 460 m (1607 ft) to 890 m (2912 ft)
(Pittenger & Yori 2003). At Spud Patch Canyon, a total of 102 adult Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterflies were marked and released. Of these, only three
15
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
resident individuals were recaptured, representing 3 % of the population at this
site. No butterflies were found in different meadows within Spud Patch Canyon,
indicating no within-site movement for this community. Because it was unclear if a
loss of an individual from the population was due to death or emigration, Pittenger
and Yori (2003) equated the mean expected residence time with mean survival time
for this study. For Pumphouse Canyon, mean residence time was estimated to be
8.4 days and at Spud Patch Canyon, the mean expected residence time was 3.5 days
(Pittenger & Yori 2003).
Peak adult density, as obtained with the transect methods in occupied meadows,
differed for each site and for each year and ranged from an estimated maximum of
205 butterflies/ha (82 butterflies/ac) to an estimated minimum of 13 butterflies/ha
(five butterflies/ac) (Pittenger & Yori 2003). Density was estimated as the number
of butterflies observed per hectare (2.5 acres). At the South Fork La Luz Canyon
site, peak estimated densities were 42 butterflies/ha (17 butterflies/ac) in 2000, 50
butterflies/ha (20 butterflies/ac) in 2001, and 32 butterflies/ha (13 butterflies/ac) in
2002. Peak densities at Pumphouse Canyon were 53/ha (21 butterflies/ac) in 2000,
16/ha (6 butterflies/ac) in 2001, and 48/ha (19 butterflies/ac) in 2002. At Spud Patch
Canyon, peak densities each summer were 118 butterflies/ha in 2000 (47
butterflies/ac), 47 butterflies/ha (19 butteflies/ac) in 2001, and 31 butterflies/ha (12
butterflies/ac) in 2002. Pines Campground contained 16 butterflies/ha (6
butterflies/ac) in 2001 and 205 butterflies/ha (82 butterflies/ac) in 2002 at peak
density. Silver Springs Canyon had 13/ha (5 butterflies/ac) in 2001 and 105/ha (42
butterflies/ac) in 2002 at peak density. Data for Apache Canyon was collected only
in 2002, which had a peak density of 28 butterflies/ha (11 butterflies/ac). Bailey
Canyon contained 38 butterflies/ha (15 butterflies/ac) at peak density in 2002. For
each site, the timing of measured peak density differed, ranging from July 11 to
August 1. Regression analyses of total peak density of adult Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterflies from 2000 to 2002 showed stable trends at South Fork La
Luz Canyon (ungrazed by cattle) and Pumphouse Canyon (grazed by cattle), and a
slight downward trend that was not statistically significant in Spud Patch Canyon
(Pittenger & Yori 2003).
G. Population Structure
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies occur as small, separated groups
with low population densities (Pittenger & Yori 2003). Because the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly has a life history pattern similar to other
butterflies in the genus Euphydryas that exist as metapopulations, it is likely that
this butterfly has a metapopulation structure (Murphy & Weiss 1988, Harrison
1989, Hanski & Gilpin 1991). A metapopulation is a set of local, discrete
subpopulations that comprise a single total population within an area. Migration
from one local population to other areas containing suitable habitat occurs but is
16
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
not routine. At smaller temporal and spatial scales, individual subpopulations may
blink in and out of existence in response to demographic (related to population
trends such as births, deaths, immigration, emigration, ratios of females to males,
or distribution) or environmental impacts (Hanski 1998). Long-term persistence of
a metapopulation depends on the recolonization of extirpated areas or dispersal of
individuals to unoccupied areas from source populations so that the overall
metapopulation numbers remain stable (Hanski & Gilpin 1991, McCullough 1996,
Hanski 1999). Although overall population density estimates for the butterfly
slowly declined between 1997 and 2003, methods of population calculation were
inconsistent and conducted only at certain sites within the total range of the
butterfly. For the whole population, rates of extinction and colonization, population
growth rates, flight ranges, and average dispersal distances are unknown, so
precise metapopulation dynamics for this species cannot be quantified at this time.
Often, movement between areas containing suitable habitat (i.e., dispersal) is
restricted due to extrinsic factors, such as inhospitable conditions around and
between areas of suitable habitat or extensive distances to suitable habitat patches.
For example, the butterfly’s dependence upon solar radiation and air temperatures
to attain body temperatures necessary for flight prohibits travel through broad,
shaded patches of trees. Additionally, the butterfly appears to favor flight close to
the ground (E. Hein, pers. comm. 2004) and, like other Euphydryas species, may
avoid flying over objects taller than 2 m (7 ft) (USFWS 2003), such as buildings or
forested areas. For the endangered Bay checkerspot, E. editha bayensis, suitable
habitat patches separated from a source population by level ground were more
likely to be colonized than patches separated by hilly terrain (Harrison 1989). Thus
flatter areas, with low-growing vegetation within the flight range of the butterfly
may be necessary for successful dispersal.
For Euphydryas species, intrinsic factors, such as body size, sedentary habits, and
other behavioral dynamics (Ehrlich et al. 1975), also contribute to low rates of
migration. Generations of Euphydryas butterflies tend to remain at a site for many
reasons including: lack of rapid locomotion due to small body size with short legs
(larvae) and weak flight (adults) which prohibits long-distance movement; short
adult life span which offers little time to migrate; immediate mating of eclosed
females which reduces mating opportunities for migrating males; and the use of a
mating plug by male butterflies to prevent additional inseminations which
decreases receptivity and stimulates searches for specific oviposition host plants in
female butterflies (Labine 1964). In other Euphydryas populations, females are
more likely to emigrate than males (Wahlberg et al. 2002) and probabilities of
migration increase with age (Ehrlich 1965). Conflictingly, a female’s genetic
contribution to a population decreases with lateness in the season due to the decline
in egg loads (Harrison 1989), the diminishing suitability of host plants as they
senesce (Erhlich et al. 1975), and the lack of time remaining for pre-diapause larvae
to accumulate sufficient reserves before entering diapause (USFWS 2003).
17
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Areas of suitable habitat, such as sunny meadows with adequate host-plant, nectar,
structural (pupal attachment), and litter (diapause location) resources, may be
small and capable of supporting only low numbers of butterflies. As smaller pockets
of individuals are more susceptible to random demographic events, climatic
extremes, or disturbance, local extinction of these small populations may be
common. Furthermore, populations with fewer individuals suffer from higher
extinction rates because of an unavoidable increase in matings with close relatives,
or inbreeding (Saccheri et al. 1998). Inbreeding within butterfly subpopulations has
been linked to a reduction in egg hatching rate and larval survival, a lengthened
pupal period, which increases chances of parasitism, and a shortened female
lifespan which lowers the number of eggs laid (Saccheri et al. 1998). Thus small,
isolated populations of butterflies may experience an increased probability of
extinction due to a reduction in fitness, or inbreeding depression, from the
interaction among decreased heterozygosity (genetic variation), demography, and
environmental stochasticity.
To balance the local extirpations with recolonization events, dispersal is a key factor
in maintaining a metapopulation’s resilience. Dispersal is affected not only by the
amount of usable habitat but also by the spatial configurations of habitat across
landscapes. Corridors linking usable habitats provide access to additional resources
and are correlated with the success of foraging, mate-finding, and dispersal to new
meadows in response to environmental changes and natural disturbances
(Schumaker 1996). Additionally, a corridor must provide conditions that invite a
species to pass through the landscape at its own pace, a feature especially
important for small and relatively sedentary organisms (Beier & Loe 1992), such as
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, that may migrate in a stepping-stone
approach over more than one season (USFWS 2003). For the butterfly, travel
appears to be limited during the larval stages, with pre-diapause larvae known to
move up to 2 m (6.6 ft) and post-diapause larvae known to move up to 24.8 m (81 ft),
with an average movement of 2.6 m (8.5 ft) (Pittenger & Yori 2003). At the adult
stage, the average dispersal distance or the maximum flight distance is unknown,
but the maximum recorded distance of movement for this subspecies is 890 m (2919
ft) (Pittenger & Yori 2003). Thus, habitat loss can reduce the size of and
connectivity between pockets of suitable butterfly habitat.
The reduction in the extent of meadows and other suitable non-forested areas due to
commercial and private development in suitable habitat and small amounts of
conifer encroachment into suitable habitat as a result of grazing and fire
suppression on public and private lands (Belsky & Blumenthal 1997, Garrett &
Garrett 2001) may have decreased connectivity among some localities. Also, these
factors may have increased the distance beyond the normal dispersal ability of the
butterfly, making recolonization of some patches following local extinction more
difficult (Cullenward et al. 1979, Hanski 1999). Diminishing habitat area can
18
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
lower the quality of remaining habitat by reducing the diversity of microclimates
and food plants for larvae and adult butterflies (Murphy & Weiss 1988, Thomas et
al. 1996, Hanski 1999) and the opportunities for mate-finding and reproductive
success (Erhlich et al. 1975).
Based on available information concerning climate, topography, soils, and
vegetation, the distribution of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly may
have been more extensive and continuous prior to commercial and private
development, road construction, extensively grazed range conditions, and the
increase in trees. On a landscape scale, the isolated localities, tight associations
with food and nectar sources, and limited geographic range of the butterfly indicate
that the species is particularly vulnerable to perturbations (Ehrlich et al. 1972;
Thomas et al.1996).
19
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
III. STATUS AND THREATS
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly was proposed for listing as
endangered with critical habitat on September 6, 2001 (USFWS 2001). Section
4(a)(1) of the ESA lists five listing factors that must be considered when
determining if a species should be designated as threatened or endangered. These
include:
(A) present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range;
(B) over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
A species may be designated as endangered or threatened due to one or more of
these five listing factors.
The 2001 proposed rule stated that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly is endangered as a result of destruction and fragmentation of habitat from
private and commercial development, catastrophic wildfire, habitat degradation and
loss of host plants from grazing, some recreational activities, encroachment of
conifers and nonnative vegetation into non-forested openings, over collection, and
vulnerability to local extirpations from climate changes such as drought (USFWS
2001). However, several of these threats have become less severe since the
publication of the September 6, 2001, proposed rule to list the butterfly. Below, we
address each of the previously identified threats and discuss the changes that have
occurred in the last three years. The result is an accurate, current picture of the
threats that remain to the species, so that we can prioritize and maximize the
effectiveness of conservation measures aimed at ameliorating remaining threats
(See Section IV).
A. Destruction, Modification, or Fragmentation of Habitat
The butterfly’s reliance on meadows makes it particularly sensitive to habitat loss
and degradation because meadows are easily accessed, clear of obstacles, and
inviting for human activities. Actions resulting in removal and ultimately loss of
host or nectar plants may threaten the survival of the species. In addition,
reduction and loss of habitat lowers the quality of remaining habitat by reducing
the diversity of microclimates and food plants available for larvae and adult
butterflies (Murphy & Weiss 1988, Thomas et al. 1996, Hanski 1999). Ground
disturbance and vegetation clearing can disturb soils, remove or eliminate diapause
20
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
sites (i.e., leaf litter, grasses, rocks) and larval or adult food plants, and kill or
injure individuals (Wilcox & Murphy 1985, Murphy & Weiss 1988). This type of
habitat loss or modification can occur through the following activities: development,
wildfire and suppression, inappropriate grazing, highway improvement activities,
recreation, and invasive plants and insects.
Habitat fragmentation can further separate isolated localities containing small
populations of butterflies, making these groups even more vulnerable to natural
perturbations and local extinctions. As discussed previously, the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly likely exists as a metapopulation (i.e., local
populations connected by dispersing individuals). Because many of the areas of
suitable habitat may be small, and support low numbers of butterflies, local
extinction of these small populations may be common. A metapopulation’s
persistence depends on the combined dynamics of these local extinctions and the
subsequent recolonization of these areas by dispersal (Hanski & Gilpin 1991, 1997,
McCullough 1996, Hanski 1999). For habitat specialist butterflies, open corridors
between occupied woodland clearings are known to increase butterfly population
densities by facilitating dispersal between meadow patches (Sutcliffe & Thomas
1996, Haddad & Baum 1999). The reduction in the extent of meadows and other
suitable non-forested areas may eliminate connectivity among some localities and
increase the distance beyond the normal dispersal ability of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, making recolonization of some patches following
local extinction more difficult (Cullenward et al. 1979, Hanski 1999). Therefore,
even around sites of human land use, it is important to maintain meadow
continuity and connectivity where possible to encourage dispersal and
recolonization.
Commercial and Private Development
Expansion of the Village of Cloudcroft and subdivision development were cited as
two of the primary reasons for the 1998 petition and were cited in the 2001
proposed rule. Approximately 50% of all lands that might support the butterfly are
in private ownership, where recommendations of habitat management for the
butterfly can be suggested but not regulated (USFWS 2001). Of the 1034 ha (2553
ac) of potential butterfly habitat estimated to occur on private lands, from 155 to
362 ha (383 to 894 ac) may be occupied by the butterfly. Non-forested lands often
are preferred by developers because these areas are less costly to develop (i.e., there
are no trees to clear and the land generally lacks steep topography and is accessible
from roads). Heavy clearing and mowing activities on improved (i.e., with existing
structures) or unimproved private lands, to reduce the threat of wildfire or improve
the residential appearance, could eliminate larval or adult food plants and/or
localities that are used by the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
Additionally, the conversion of native landscapes to nonnative vegetation (e.g.,
lawns or gardens) could fragment localities, eliminate movement corridors, or cause
21
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
additional loss of suitable habitat (Wood & Samways 1991, Holland 2001).
Development reduces blocks of native vegetation to fragments that are insularized,
creating a matrix of native habitat islands that have been altered by varying
degrees from their natural state.
Developed areas within and around Cloudcroft include two golf courses, 12 private
developments, several recreation parks, a ski area and a network of paved and
gravel roadways (USFWS 2001). The Woodlands subdivision, developed on the east
side of the Village, was constructed upon a previously forested area at the edge of
butterfly habitat. Additionally, Otero County is drafting a county-wide ordinance to
require contractors to consider effects upon sensitive, threatened, or endangered
species within development plans. This ordinance will obligate developers to ensure
that the butterfly’s habitat is maintained.
According to population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of
Cloudcroft has remained stable for the past four years with a slight decline since
2001 (Bureau of Business & Economic Research 2004) (see Table 1). In 2003, the
reported estimated population of Cloudcroft was 724 (Bureau of Business &
Economic Research 2004). According to the U.S. Bureau of Census (2000), there
were six housing structures built from 1999 to 2000 for the Village of Cloudcroft.
Furthermore, Otero County reported that eight to 10 new homes have been
constructed each year in areas that have already been subdivided (Otero County in
lit). Within Cloudcroft and the surrounding community, there is not enough
development to support a viable construction industry. Currently, ensuring the
supply of ground water to existing residences is becoming an increasingly important
issue to the Village. Thus, according to the Village of Cloudcroft, commercial
development is no longer being encouraged as stated in the 2001 proposed rule.
Table 1. Human population estimate for the Village of Cloudcroft from 1960 to 2003
(Bureau of
Business and Economic Research 2002, 2004).
Year 2003 2002 2001 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960
Village
of
Cloudcro
724 726 730 749 612 521 525 464
ft
National Forest Service lands surround the Village of Cloudcroft, making the
Lincoln National Forest the only lands available for annexation and village
expansion. In August 2001, the Forest Service signed a decision notice and finding
of no significant impact for an application to transfer public land to the Village
under the Townsite Act of 1958. The application included a formal development
22
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
plan that stated the Village’s intent to use the land as: 22 acres for a sports field;
42 acres for greenbelts; and eight acres for a wastewater plant. However, to date,
this proposal has not been implemented. The Village of Cloudcroft has stated its
intention to keep all new land annexed from the Forest Service as greenbelt. Both
prior to and during the formulation of the Village’s application under the Townsite
Act, various areas adjacent to the Village’s boundary were screened by the Forest
Service to determine their suitability for the purposes intended. Many areas were
liminated by the Forest Service from further analysis because of substantial
S, the proposed three-way
ansfer would be entirely beneficial to the butterfly because 80 acres of butterfly
abitat will become Forest Service administered lands.
e
environmental concerns.
The Forest Service is also in the planning phase of a three-way proposal with the
Village of Cloudcroft and the Otero County Electrical Cooperative to acquire 80
acres of butterfly habitat, 15 of which are occupied butterfly habitat. This land is
currently owned by Cloudcroft and is adjacent to the Ski Cloudcroft ski area. The
Village of Cloudcroft would in turn receive five commercial lots in the center of town
that total approximately one acre owned by the Otero County Electrical
Cooperative. The Otero County Electrical Cooperative would acquire 40 acres of
Forest Service land that is not butterfly habitat outside of town to relocate their
offices. According to the Forest Service and USFW
tr
h
Catastrophic Wildfire, Fire Suppression, Thinning
Due to the small known range and low abundance of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly, the subspecies is vulnerable to catastrophic wildfires.
Although at least nine catastrophic wildfires have burned over 34,000 ha (90,000 ac)
during the last 50 years in the Sacramento Mountains (Kaufmann et al. 1998), a
significant fire has not been documented within occupied or proposed critical
habitat since 1916 (R. Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). Thus the effect of fire upon
this species is unknown and the natural fire regime in the habitat of the butterfly is
non-existent due to the lack of fire occurrence since the butterfly was recognized as
a subspecies. Because the butterfly is a non-migratory, fairly sedentary, host-plant
specialist, the whole population could be eliminated should the entire occupied
butterfly habitat severely burn. It is possible, however, that surrounding habitat
and unburned inclusions within catastrophically burned areas may serve as
butterfly sources to recolonize cleared areas, provided there are enough survivors to
form a viable population. Favoring low-lying meadows may benefit the butterfly,
since fires in the region tend to burn in a mosaic pattern and are less likely to burn
in meadows compared to surrounding forests (R. Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004).
Fuels in meadows may burn quickly and may not have pronounced heat effects in
the soil or seedbank (R. Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). The disturbed, rocky
areas where the larval host plants grow tend to have a lack of continuous fine fuels
23
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
w
ain, inferences based on historical patterns, current conditions, the
utterfly’s needs and life history, and the effects of fire upon other butterflies must
65% of the ponderosa pine/mixed conifer region at
isk for fire (Garrett & Garrett 2001), increasing the likelihood of a burn in forests
hich may not carry a fire as effectively as substrates beneath a forest. Re-starting
succession in these communities may or may not increase opportunities for
Penstemon, Valerian, or Helenium species’ establishment and growth. As the long-term
fire response of this subspecies, its required host plants, and meadow habitats
remains uncert
b
be examined.
A century of fire suppression, logging of old-growth trees (Garrett & Garrett 2001),
and livestock grazing (Waltz & Covington 2004) has altered the structure of the
Lincoln National Forest, creating novel fire conditions to which the butterfly and
other native species may not be adapted. Generally these conditions manifest as
changes in intensity, severity, duration, and timing of fires in response to season,
climate, fuels, topography, and community assemblages (Swetnam & Baisan 1996,
Touchan et al. 1996, Kaufmann et al. 1998). As systems that were previously
shaped by fire, forests defined by ponderosa pine 1,680-2590 m (5,500-8,500 ft) and
mixed conifer 2440-2900 m (8,000-9,500 ft) have been affected significantly by past
land uses (Touchan et al. 1994, Swetnam & Baisan 1996, Garrett & Garrett 2001).
Prior to 1900, the mean natural fire interval for forests in the Sacramento
Mountains ranged from 3-10 years in ponderosa pine dominated communities, from
4-12 years in the lower elevations of mixed conifer zones, and from 5-25 years in the
upper portions of mixed conifer areas (USDA 1992, Kaufmann et al. 1998, Garrett
& Garrett 2001). In the lower transition zones, frequent, low-intensity, surface fires
historically did little damage to the large, old-growth trees, cleared away flammable
organic material within the forest, and maintained meadows by preventing the
encroachment of trees into open areas (Kaufmann et al. 1998, Garrett & Garrett
2001). Spruce-fir communities within the higher elevations sustained less frequent,
mixed-severity fires, with both patchy surface fires and stand-replacement fires
(USDA 1992, Touchan et al. 1996). During this period, 10-15% of the forest was
occupied by meadows (Garrett & Garrett 2001). To have persisted until the
present, the butterfly appears to have been adapted to this natural disturbance
regime of fires. Forests, which were once open stands of mature trees with greater
moisture availability and higher biodiversity, have developed into dense stands of
small-diameter trees with less moisture availability and lower biotic diversity
(Garrett & Garrett 2001). Present forest conditions, combined with the current
drought, have put an estimated
r
surrounding butterfly habitat.
Depending on a fire’s severity and the butterfly’s life stage, the direct and indirect
consequences of fire upon the butterfly could range from deadly to inconsequential.
Catastrophic fires can occur as high intensity fires, where heat is released upward
into the canopy consuming foliage, or as high severity fires, during which litter and
duff consumption sends heat penetrating downward through the soil (Farris et al.
24
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1996). For the butterfly, an intense canopy fire concentrated on forested slopes,
while larvae are diapausing beneath the soil surface in low-lying meadows, may
have relatively little impact, as the larvae may be protected from flames, radiant
heat, or smoke. However, the same fire event during the pupal, adult, or egg stage,
all of which occur above ground, could lead to butterfly damage or mortality through
exposure. Nonvagility can be a significant predictor of an initial negative response
to fire, but it has not affected mean recovery times for some butterfly communities
(Panzer 2002). Alternatively, a ground fire involving deep soil heating due to the
formation of mats of imported grasses such as Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis)
could be lethal to any life stage of the butterfly (Society of American Foresters
1984). Grazing may reduce the ability of a meadow to carry a fire, by consuming
ne fuels and forming a discontinuous fuel pattern. This interaction between fire
utrient recycling and add heterogeneity to
he landscape, as opposed to severe, dry-season ground fires, may provide potential
fi
and grazing could be positive for the butterfly, at least in the short term.
The butterfly appears to select environments based on favorable microhabitats,
involving direct sunlight, mixed topography, host and nectar plants, and certain
ground cover characteristics (as discussed in the biology section). Fire alters
vegetation structure and composition, decreases litter depth, redistributes nitrogen,
changes soil chemistry, modifies soil moisture and temperature, transforms host
and nectar plant quality, and reduces overall cover (Anderson et al. 1989, White
1996, Siemann et al. 1997, Waltz & Covington 2004). Areas cleared by fire allow
grasslands to spread, and expanded areas have been associated with increased
butterfly immigration (Krauss et al. 2003). Opened canopies enhance the reception
of sunlight, a factor that is correlated with nectar production (Schultz 2001).
However, creating new openings may also invite bird predation along woodland
edges (Ries & Fagan 2003). Additionally, the removal of vegetation could make
individuals or eggs more susceptible to environmental extremes or other predators,
such as ants. These indirect effects of fire upon the butterfly may be significant
because the butterfly is so closely associated with certain plants and specific habitat
requirements. If fire increases the presence or productivity of host and nectar
plants, improves ground cover conditions, or modifies vegetative structure to
facilitate feeding, mate-finding, and travel, then fire would have a positive long-term
impact on the butterfly. Contrastingly, if fire eliminates the butterfly’s
required physical or biological habitat features, such as favorable microclimates,
host plants and their seed banks, or duff and litter layers for potential diapause
locations, butterfly populations could drop or subpopulations could go extinct.
Small, cool-season burns that stimulate n
t
benefits to the butterfly’s habitat needs.
Although data on the ecology of large fires in mixed conifer forests and meadows
(Allen (ed.) 1996, Farris et al. 1998, McCarthy & Yanoff 2003), as well as data on
post-fire butterfly and plant recovery after such fires are lacking (Waltz &
Covington 2004), a few studies have examined butterfly responses to fire. Results of
these studies tend to be species specific and span a range of outcomes. Fire has
25
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
caused the extirpation of populations of other butterflies in the genus Euphydryas
(Murphy & Weiss 1988; 62 FR 2313). Butterfly individuals in savannas in
Minnesota were between 0-5 times lower in number in burned areas than in
unburned areas (Siemann et al. 1997). For rarer butterflies in this study, results
suggested that natural population perturbations in combination with fire could
result in extinction (Siemann et al. 1997). On the other hand, butterfly
communities in tallgrass prairie experienced full recovery after fire within the
second year (Panzer 2002). Controlled burns in a Great Basin, montane watershed
did not significantly affect butterfly species richness or community similarity among
the following areas: 1) burned two years before butterfly sampling; 2) burned one
year before butterfly sampling; and 3) unburned (Fleishman 1998). Here, the total
area of burn units and controls comprised a small proportion of the total watershed
area (Fleishman 1998). Moreover, although burn units were larger than the home
ranges of many butterfly species in the central Great Basin, burn units were
situated within a matrix of undisturbed vegetation, allowing recolonization from the
surrounding area (Fleishman 1998). In an Arizona ponderosa pine community, fire
and thinning restoration treatments doubled butterfly species richness and tripled
species abundance of butterflies within one year (Waltz & Covington 2004). After
two years of treatment, butterfly diversity decreased by 25% and abundance
increased by 14% (Waltz & Covington 2004). When analyzed by family, Nymphalid
butterflies revealed a different trend, with a slight decrease in abundance for the
first year after treatment followed by an increase in the second year. These
changes, however, were not supported s atistically and much of the increase in the
second year was driven by greater numbers of migratory Nymphalid butterflies,
such as the painted lady (Vanessa cardui) (Waltz & Covington 2004). Species
richness of host and nectar plants showed little difference between treated and
controlled ponderosa forest in this study (Waltz & Covington 2004). Sunlight,
however, was significantly greater in restored forests, suggesting that butterflies
respond to the effects of fire
t
and thinning prior to forbs, and that thermoregulatory
fluences of light in and warmth for butterfly activities are important in this process
(Waltz & Covington 2004).
Some local information is available from postfire monitoring of the Scott Able fire
that burned 24 km (15 miles) southeast of the Village of Cloudcroft. In May, 2000,
the Scott Able fire burned 6,400 ha (16,000 ac) in the Lincoln National Forest,
covering elevations between 2250-3000 m (7000-9300 ft) (S. Cary NM Parks &
Recreation, pers. comm. 2004). The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
does not occur in the location of the burn, but P. neomexicanus and H. hoopseii can
be found (S. Cary, pers. comm. 2004). The response of the butterfly communities to
this fire appears to be largely determined by guild, or habitat/food preference (S.
Cary, pers. comm. 2004). Between 2001 and 2003, mobile butterflies associated
with shrubs, grasses, and forbs have shown a positive response to the fire, with
most species peaking in 2001 after abundant spring precipitation (S. Cary,
unpublished data). Riparian butterfly species exhibited depauperate populations at
26
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
burned sites, while butterflies associated with edge habitats are more plentiful at
burned sites (S. Cary, unpublished data). This intense, wind-driven fire burned an
estimated 0-10% of the meadows and 85-90% of the forested canopies within its
scope (S. Cary, pers. comm. 2004), meeting the qualifications for a stand-replacement
fire in much of the burned area (McCarthy & Yanoff 2003). Meadows
in mixed conifer habitat that did not burn were situated primarily along drainages
(S. Cary pers. comm. 2004). The first meadow area that the fire did burn through
did not burn completely and vegetation began coming back within a few weeks (R.
Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). These data suggest that meadows and drainages
ay be less likely to burn than mixed-conifer canopies, which could protect the
, if logging becomes too
tensive, forest habitats can become dessicated and homogenized which eventually
m
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
Fire management through thinning may not only reduce fire size and intensity, but
may also mimic aspects of stand removal from fire that may be advantageous for
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. In general, old-growth
specialists tend to decline in logged forests, while local invertebrate species richness
increases as forest generalists persist and numerous open-habitat species appear
(Niemela 1996). Benefits to the butterfly could involve enhancements in meadow
size, early-successional plants, solar radiation to the soil surface, and habitat
connectivity, providing that these benefits outweigh any harm done to the butterfly
during the logging process. Grassland butterfly species diversity and abundance
can increase after clear-cutting but decline as secondary succession progresses
(Inoue 2003). In thinned and slash-mulched pinyon-juniper woodlands of New
Mexico, significant increases in butterfly diversity and abundance in a treated
watershed compared to an untreated watershed were correlated with greater forb
and grass cover in the treated area (Kleintjes 2004). However, in Indonesia,
tropical butterflies showed higher species richness, abundance, and evenness in
unlogged forest compared to forest that had been selectively logged five years
previously (Hill et al. 1995). But other studies in Borneo and Belize found no
evidence that selective logging had changed the richness and abundance of
butterflies (Willott et al. 2000, Lewis 2001). Canopy openness, close proximity to
primary, unlogged forest, and adaptation to natural hurricane and fire disturbance
were cited as factors that helped to maintain the butterfly communities (Willott et
al. 2000, Lewis 2001). At the landscape scale, however
in
could lead to a decline of sensitive species (Niemela 1996).
Woodland canopy reduction is important for open-habitat butterflies, which readily
move from meadows into corridors, but rarely from meadows into dense woodlands
(Sutcliffe & Thomas 1996). Also, open-habitat specialist butterflies are known to
reach higher densities in patches connected by corridors than in isolated patches
(Haddad & Baum 1999). The formation of cleared corridors or stepping-stone
patches by thinning could allow the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly to
migrate between suitable meadows (Maina & Howe 2000), thus encouraging
colonization of new sites or genetic exchange among the subpopulations. Pollinators
27
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
of the New Mexico penstemon and valerian host plants may also take advantage of
these corridors. Thinning has been associated with the establishment of plant and
butterfly edge specialists which helps to diversify the ecosystem and could provide
otential microhabitats or nectar sources for the Sacramento Mountains
itable butterfly habitat in the Lincoln
ational Forest may begin to exhibit the habitat characteristics the Sacramento
nsities in forests surrounding the meadows may effectively
ontrol the intensity of fires in the area and reduce the threat of catastrophic
ildfire to the butterfly.
Highway and Forest Road Reconstruction
p
checkerspot butterfly (Bergman 2001).
In the Sacramento Mountains, several locations adjacent to occupied butterfly
habitat have been progressively thinned since 2002. Thinned areas occur in Bailey
Canyon (215 ha, 532 ac), Pineywood Canyon (262 ha, 647 ac), Deerhead Canyon
(146 ha, 360 ac), and along Cox Canyon (72 ha, 178 ac). An additional 373 ha (921
ac) are designated for thinning in Apache Canyon and 81 ha (201 ac) are projected
for a different part of Deerhead Canyon (R. Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). Thus
far, neither the butterfly nor its host plants have been observed in the thinned
forest edges (R. Guaderrama pers. comm. 2004). Colonization of these areas may
take longer time frames, as an E. editha population in California took 12 years to
colonize a nearby clear-cut area within coniferous forest (Thomas et al. 1996). Over
time, thinned locations adjacent to su
N
Mountains checkerspot butterfly prefers.
Since 2000, the Forest Service has invested almost $11 million to reduce hazardous
fuels on more than 46,000 acres on the Lincoln National Forest, with funding and
acreage treated in 2004 nearly 3 times the 2000 level (CFRP Press Release No.
0255.04). As part of the Healthy Forests Initiative, in June, 2004, the Lincoln
National Forest received $750,000 to thin an additional 1,500 to 2,000 acres of
overgrown stands of trees adjacent to communities in Lincoln and Otero counties.
The goals of these thinning treatments are to reduce the threat of catastrophic
wildfire in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and to assist in the economic
sustainability of these communities. The Forest Service concluded that fuel load
reduction projects are not expected to change the existing habitat conditions for the
butterfly, or positively or negatively impact the butterfly (Forest Service 1999h).
The Forest Service has agreed to inform project managers and equipment operators
of butterfly locations in order to prevent damage to the butterfly during thinning
operations by redirecting the placement of access routes, machinery, slash piles,
and other project materials, and to monitor on-site during implementation of such
activities. Given the novelty of the extensive thinning approach in the Lincoln
National Forest, there exists no data to make adequate predictions concerning the
response of the butterfly to the increase in thinning. However, reducing ladder fuel
accumulation and tree de
c
w
28
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
According to the 2001 proposed rule, construction of roadways and associated
activities can eliminate or reduce the quality or quantity of checkerspot butterfly
habitat. During the late 1990s, the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation
Department (NMSHTD) improved a stretch of highway approximately 2 miles long
from State Highway 130 near the Village of Cloudcroft. As mitigation for impacting
butterflies and butterfly habitat during the road widening project, the NMSHTD
undertook a $30,000 population study that was conducted between 1999 - 2003.
Although the Service stated that Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies
may have been killed, results of the study conducted by NMSHTD increased our
knowledge of this species (see above). In addition, $10,000 was spent on
anslocation of plant species used by the butterfly.
Recreation Activities and Off-Highway Vehicles
p in the meadow areas, thus impact to the butterfly is
ot likely to be significant.
uires
mediate attention if it occurs in meadow habitats occupied by the butterfly.
tr
The beauty, openness, and accessibility of meadows in the Lincoln National Forest
make the butterfly’s habitat appealing to outdoor recreationalists, such as campers,
hunters, hikers, mountain bikers, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) users. The history
of light human impact in campgrounds located in occupied habitat attests to the
compatibility of the butterfly with limited human activity. There are fourteen
campgrounds in the Lincoln National Forest that over lap with butterfly habitat. In
addition, the Lincoln National Forest allows for dispersed camping (i.e., camping
outside of designated campgrounds) along a 91 m (300 ft) corridor on both sides of
existing roads (Forest Service 1986). However, according to the Forest Service,
most visitors tend not to cam
n
The ever-growing number of OHV users on public lands presents a significant
threat to the butterfly and its habitat. The definition of an OHV includes any
vehicle that can involve any vehicle that can travel off road, such as sport utility
vehicles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), minibikes, off-highway motorcycles, go-carts,
motorized trail bikes, dune buggies, amphibious vehicles, and snow-mobiles (Forest
Service Proposed OHV Rule 2004). Nationally, use of OHVs has increased 109%
since 1982 (Forest Service Proposed OHV Rule 2004), and an estimated “tens of
millions” of OHVs are in use today (Bosworth 2004). Consistent with this trend,
OHV use in New Mexico in general and the Lincoln National Forest in particular is
on the rise (Forest Service 1996). The majority of riders tend to remain on
designated trails, but a distinct minority drive off trails and do not ride responsibly.
The creation of renegade trails by these riders causes most of the resource damage
(Issa 2004), which takes place primarily in meadows, riparian areas, and steep
slopes (Forest Service 1986). As OHV use appears to be rising rapidly along with
the rise of traditional hunting, hiking, or camping activities in the area, the
understanding and management of OHV use is an important issue that req
im
29
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Although there is a dearth of scientific information concerning the impact of OHVs,
mountain bikes, highway vehicles, or roads on the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly, detrimental effects of off-road riding of vehicles or heavy foot
traffic in occupied meadows could cause mortality to the butterfly through direct
crushing of the larval, pupal, egg, or diapause stages and could damage adults as
they are stationary or flying. Clusters of soft-shelled, minute eggs of the butterfly
are attached to Penstemon leaves from 7 to 40 cm (3 to 16 in) above the ground (J.
McIntyre pers. obs. 2004). Not only are eggs susceptible to being crushed by
recreationalists, but also eggs can be brushed off of the host plant subjecting them
to an increased likelihood of exposure and predation on the ground below. Larval
tents contain from 10-100 prediapause larvae in late summer to early fall, so the
impact from tires on the butterfly population at this time may be substantial.
Springtime, post-diapause larvae in the genus Euphydryas have gregarious
tendencies, often clustering in areas of open soils, such as trails and roads, to
thermoregulate (Weiss et al. 1987, Osborne & Redak 2000). Adult butterflies using
roads or trails as thermoregulation sites expose themselves more to the risk of
mortality than those alighting at natural patches of open ground that are not
impacted by recreational activities. Other butterflies have been damaged by OHVs,
including the endangered Quino checkerspot, E. editha quino, which displays habits
imilar to that of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot (USFWS 2003).
OHVs in butterfly habitat could harm
he butterfly and its supporting ecosystem.
s
Indirect impacts upon the butterfly by recreational vehicles may include the
destruction of host and nectar plants, the modification of microclimates, the
disintegration of soil crusts, the compaction of soil, the relocation of soil, the
formation of ruts leading to erosion, and the alteration of the local hydrology (Smith
et al. 2002). The formation of trails or ruts may divert water away from host plant
sites, negatively impacting the food source of the butterfly. While some plant
communities may benefit from light physical disturbance, few plants are adapted to
withstand repeated disturbance by frequent OHV use. Alterations of physical
habitat in unoccupied meadows could limit the butterfly’s colonization of new
territory if environmental features preferred by the butterfly are degraded by
OHVs. Dust thrown up from dry soils may be detrimental to the butterfly by
covering its body with extra mass requiring an additional allocation of energy for
movement or possibly delaying predator evasion. Covering host or nectar plants
with dust may impede photosynthesis and plant growth, making plants less
palatable and visual cues for the butterflies less cognizable (Farmer 1993). Vehicles
are known to deposit toxic substances in the environment such as exhaust fumes
and oil, which may endanger the life stages of the butterfly that are associated with
areas close to the substrate. Thus, the use of
t
Recreational disturbance can impact soil, water, vegetation, fish, wildlife, National
Forest visitors, and cultural and historical resources (Forest Service Proposed OHV
Rule 2004). The growing magnitude and intensity of OHV use has been associated
30
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
with reduced soil depth, water quality, air quality, audio and visual aesthetics, and
a decline in grasses, forbs, and shrubs (Webb & Wilshire 1983, Northwestern Great
Basin Resource Advisory Council Meeting Notes 2003, Issa 2004, Forest Service
Proposed OHV Rule 2004). OHV use is known to increase: rutted areas on roads;
the density of tire tracks; soil compaction and runoff; wind and water erosion rates
that permanently affect the productivity of National Forest lands; trail connectivity
and fragmentation of habitats; the spread of noxious weeds along trails; disturbance
of wildlife and wildlife habitat; damage to cultural and historical sites; human
safety concerns; and conflicts between National Forest users (Webb & Wilshire
983, Watkins et al. 2003, Forest Service Proposed OHV Rule 2004).
icial effects on butterfly populations, depending on the adaptability of the
utterfly.
o
1
Studies investigating the effects of OHVs on insects are scarce. In one study,
however, the impact of dune buggies on beach invertebrates produced a 15% drop in
ground-dwelling arthropod populations on beaches with low level OHV use (Pearson
2004). Even heavy foot traffic can reduce specialist butterfly species richness (as
opposed to generalist species, that have broader distributions, longer flight seasons,
and a greater array of food sources) (Kitahara & Fuji 1994, Kitahara et al. 2000).
Although light foot traffic may benefit the disturbance-dependent host plants of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, intensive human foot traffic can alter
soil and vegetation properties, and in one case foot traffic produced a 68% decrease
in total above ground biomass and a 30-fold increase in erosion at a military site in
Colorado (Whitecotton et al. 2000). Yet, light impacts may be beneficial to some
butterflies. A Wisconsin study found the abundance of the Karner Blue Butterfly’s
host plant, wild lupine, and associated nectar-producing plants to be greater in the
median strip between vehicle tracks than within a track or 5 m (15.2 ft) beyond a
track (Smith et al. 2002). Lupine stem density and the proportion of lupine stems
with larval feeding were enhanced by moderate human activity (Smith et al. 2002).
Therefore, occasional low to moderate levels of human recreational activities could
have benef
b
Roads and trails also have been implicated as a source of mortality for many species
of wildlife (Haskell 1999, Trombulak & Frissell 1999). A review of all kinds of roads
revealed seven effects: 1) mortality from road construction; 2) death due to collision
with vehicles; 3) modification of animal behavior; 4) alteration of the physical
environment; 5) transformation of the chemical environment; 6) spread of exotics;
and 7) increased use of areas by humans (Trombulak & Frissell 1999). The actual
ecological impact of trails and roads can extend up 100 m into the surrounding
habitat forming a “road-effect zone” that represents a larger area of influence on
plants and animals than the dimension of the road itself (Forman 2000, Watkins et
al. 2003). In the Lincoln National Forest, roads and trails create an adjacent area
f soil disturbance, which restarts succession and may stimulate the germination of
Penstemon and sneezeweed. However, positive effects of roads and trails in
butterfly habitat may be offset by the increased destruction to the butterfly and its
habitat by unauthorized trails carved through meadows, and may serve to provide
31
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
access for butterfly collectors. Roads and moving vehicles also fragment habitats
and isolate invertebrate populations by impeding movement and dispersal (Mader
1984, Mader et al. 1990, Haskell 1999, Trombulak & Frissell 1999), which could
negatively impact the butterfly. Alternatively, due to the inviting thermoregulatory
qualities of roads to butterflies, roads may serve as corridors for butterfly dispersal
nd help enhance the colonization of new meadows (Tiebout & Anderson 1996).
hich the needs of
ecreation provision and resource protection must be balanced.
checkerspot butterfly from
otentially damaging OHV and recreational activities.
a
As New Mexico’s human population climbs, vehicular use and demands for
recreational access, particularly during the spring, summer, and fall months (the
same activity period as the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly), are
expected to increase (FS 1986). The FS estimates there are at least 1368 km (850
mi) of OHV routes on National Forest land in the Southwest, with at least 80 km
(50 mi) being added annually (FS 1986). The Sacramento district contains 415 km
(258 mi) of trails and over 1610 km (1000 mi) of Forest Service roads (Mountain
Monthly, July 2004). Maintenance of these roads is costly, as is the closing and
restoration of illegally created trails. The demand for riding opportunities versus
the resulting environmental damage creates a situation in w
r
To reduce the threats of OHVs and recreational activities upon the butterfly,
monitoring by the Forest Service of OHV use in suitable butterfly habitat is
currently underway. Meadow areas are being mapped using GIS technology and
renegade trails within meadows are being measured and their impacts on the
habitat are being documented. Recently, Frank Martinez, District Ranger for the
Forest Service, issued a statement to the Cloudcroft community to raise awareness
of proper OHV use and to help protect the Lincoln National Forest from illegal OHV
damage (Mountain Monthly, July 2004). Plans for education, trail design and
maps, set-asides in the form of meadow closures, and enforcement are in the
developmental stages to increase community awareness of where trail use is
permitted and to protect the Sacramento Mountains
p
Domestic Livestock Grazing
The issue of livestock grazing is important in relation to the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly due to the preference of both livestock and the butterfly for
meadow habitats along drainages and forest edges. Cattle tend to seek out the
moisture, forage, and shade found along drainage areas and at the interface of
meadow and forest (Belsky et al. 1999). The butterfly depends on the microclimate
and food plants associated with the moist soils of drainages, and possibly on the
habitat heterogeneity of forest edges for escape and diapause locations. Currently,
public livestock grazing occurs in approximately one third of the known occupied
butterfly habitat within the Lincoln National Forest (D. Salas, pers. comm. 2004)
32
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
and wild ungulate grazing occurs throughout the butterfly’s known range.
However, cattle grazing is expected to be reinstated on parts of the Jones Allotment
in May, 2005, which would expand the area of grazing on National Forest land in
occupied butterfly meadows (D. Salas, pers. comm. 2004). Precisely, of the 5,376 ha
(13,439 ac) comprising the James Allotment, 2,624 ha (6,561 ac) are expected to be
grazed by 70 cattle, while 2,751 ha (6,878 ac) are to be left ungrazed (R.
Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). The outcome of the interactions among grazing
egime, climate, and habitat type upon the butterfly is unknown.
y
rotecting the butterfly from fire exposure.
p
r
Grazing can affect the butterfly population directly by trampling, consuming, or
disturbing eggs, larvae, pupae, or sedentary adults (White 1986). Indirect effects of
grazing upon the butterfly include: 1) changes in the abundance and distribution of
larval food plants and adult nectar plants; 2) removal of herbaceous plant biomass
and litter ground cover; 3) overall alteration of the plant composition and
architecture of meadow habitats; 4) disturbance, compaction and erosion of soil; and
5) interactions with gopher activities and nesting sites of host plant pollinators,
whose presence may increase host plant vigor and fecundity (Scholl 1989, Archer &
Pike 1991, Fleischner 1994, Rittenhouse & Rosentreter 1994, Brown & McDonald
1995, Belsky & Blumenthal 1997, Donahue 1999). In addition, an indirect
interaction may exist between grazing, fire, and the butterfly. Cattle grazing tends
to form discontinuous distributions of fine fuels in meadows by opening up the grass
canopy, decreasing litter cover, and increasing the proportion of bare soil. As a
result, grazing may retard the spread of surface fires in butterfly habitat, possibl
p
The relationship between grazing and Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
opulations is unclear based on preliminary surveys of larval tents, adults, and P.
neomexicanus host plants. Pre-diapause larval tent counts of the butterfly using
the plot method were tallied from 1997-2003 (Forest Service 2003). Of the three
grazed sites, larval tent numbers declined at two sites (Cloudcroft Horse Pasture,
Cox Canyon) and rose at one site (Pumphouse Canyon). Of the six ungrazed sites,
four sites yielded declining trends in tent numbers (Bailey Canyon, Pines
Campground, Silver Springs Canyon, and Spud Patch Canyon) and two sites
experienced stable population fluctuations within those five years (Cloudcroft Crew
Quarters/Yard, Deerhead Canyon) (Forest Service 2003). Different patterns emerge
for the adult butterflies using the plot sampling method. Adult counts using years
2001 and 2003 (2002 is omitted because different sampling methods were used)
revealed decreases within the plots at four ungrazed sites measured (Bailey
Canyon, Spud Patch Canyon, Pines Campground, Silver Springs Canyon) and
increases at the two sites where grazing occurred (Pumphouse Canyon, Cloudcroft
Horse Pasture), although grazing at Cloudcroft Horse Pasture was very light and
primarily by horses (Forest Service 2003). Plot counts of P. neomexicanus
individuals in two grazed areas from 2001 to 2003 displayed increasing trends at
one site (Cloudcroft Horse Pasture) and decreasing trends at the other grazed site
33
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
(Pumphouse Canyon). Of the five ungrazed areas sampled during this time, four
areas showed a decline in P. neomexicanus numbers (Bailey Canyon, Pines
Campground, Silver Springs Canyon, Spud Patch Canyon) and one site (Cloudcroft
Crew Quarters/Yard) showed a stable trend (Forest Service 2003). Several
conclusions can be drawn from these results: 1) sampling methods did not capture
butterfly population trends in relation to grazing; 2) grazing may not be a
determining factor of butterfly population patterns; 3) grazing by elk or deer may be
confounding results; or 4) other factors (climate, predators, parasitoids) may be
interacting with grazing to produce the population dynamics captured during this
rief period.
ts,
y
nd
in
aking
e
s
ashes for
,
a
nitrogen deposition in
e Bay checkerspot’s nitrogen-poor habitat (Weiss 1999).
are released from competition when more dominant species are consumed, or
b
Of the few known studies that have investigated the effects of grazing on insec
the majority have found that decreased grazing, from heavy to lighter or non-existent
levels, can enhance species richness for adult butterflies (Wettstein &
Schmid 1999, Balmer & Erhardt 2000, Kruess & Tscharntke 2002). A single stud
found no difference in insect diversity (including butterflies) between grazed a
ungrazed areas (Rambo & Faeth 1999). In support of these findings, overall
butterfly abundance increased as grazing intensity decreased in forested meadows
in northern Germany (Kruess & Tscharntke 2002) and a ponderosa pine-grassland
community study in Arizona reflected the same pattern, with a 4-10 fold increase
insect abundance as grazing intensity decreased (Rambo & Faeth 1999). T
different approaches, two studies concluded that grazing was beneficial to
butterflies (WallisDeVries & Raemakers 2001, Weiss 1999). One study showed th
number of butterflies per species, including 4 threatened species, rose with light
grazing and no grazing, but fell in response to mowing (WallisDeVries & Raemaker
2001). Butterfly diversity in this study was not significantly different between the
three treatments. The other study, in California, reported population cr
Bay checkerspot butterflies (E. e. bayensis) in areas where grazing was
discontinued (Weiss 1999). Following the cessation of well-managed cattle grazing
butterfly populations dropped and some subpopulations even became extinct as
result of the rapid invasion by introduced annual grasses that crowded out the
butterfly’s host plants (Weiss 1999). The grasses flourished in response to the
release of grazing pressure and the increase in atmospheric
th
The gradient among light, moderate, or heavy grazing is captured by grazing
intensity, or grazing density, and affects plant species in different ways. Plant
species that decline with livestock grazing are either damaged by destruction of
their reproductive and photosynthetic organs or are intolerant of trampling or drier
conditions that vary under different grazing regimes (Belsky et al. 1999, Kreuper et
al. 2003). Many of these are long-lived perennial forbs and palatable shrubs (Noy-meir
et al. 1989). Plant species that increase tend to be unpalatable species,
exotics, or species that benefit from disturbed conditions, sub-dominant species that
34
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
upland species that prefer the drier conditions created by grazing in wetlands
(Chew 1982, Ohmart 1996, Belsky et al. 1999).
Impacts of livestock grazing on native wildlife in Southwestern montane ecosystems
vary depending on timing, duration, and intensity of grazing. For the butterfly, all
three of these factors are important since grazing may affect the butterfly’s life
stages in different ways. The passive larval, egg, and pupal phases may be the most
sensitive and, if adult checkerspot butterflies live approximately two weeks, these
more vulnerable stages constitute roughly 96% of the lifetime of the butterfly. In
the spring, grazing can result in increased mortality of post-diapause larvae via
trampling, accidental consumption, and a reduction in forage quality (Pittenger &
Yori 2003). According to White (1986), the proportion of pupae crushed by cows
(~10%) was great enough to suggest that this might be an important mortality
factor of Euphydryas spp. in a moderately grazed California grassland.
Overgrazing can substantially reduce the availability of native nectar plants for
some butterfly species (USFWS 2001). The availability of nectar and the amount
consumed by female butterflies greatly influences the number of eggs produced and
subsequent adult recruitment and thus, long-term population survival (Murphey et
al. 1983, Boggs & Ross 1993). Overgrazing by stock animals has led to extinction of
some butterfly populations in the United States, including butterflies in the genus
Euphydryas (Murphy & Weiss 1988, Ehrlich 1989, Weiss et al. 1991).
Because P. neomexicanus and H. hoopseii appear to favor sites with disturbed soils,
the presence of cattle may increase the density of these species (Pittenger & Yori
2003), which could be favorable to the butterfly. However, forage quality and not
quantity could be more important to the butterfly (Ryan & Kuserk 2003) and cattle
herbivory and trampling of P. neomexicanus may reduce forage quality for larvae
(Pittenger & Yori 2003). In general, sites that are ungrazed or lightly grazed tend
to offer greater vegetation height and heterogeneity, which would provide more
microhabitats for the butterfly, compared to heavily grazed sites (Balmer & Erhardt
2000, Kruess & Tscharntke 2002). Observations of oviposition by female
checkerspot butterflies have been correlated with taller, flowering P. neomexicanus
individuals (Forest Service 2003), generally with wider stem diameters than
average (J. McIntyre, unpublished data). Cropping of P. neomexicanus by cattle
could reduce potential oviposition sites and, consequently, overall breeding success.
The timing of P. neomexicanus clipping could be important, however. Herbivory of
the meristem early in the growing season could stimulate secondary growth and
produce denser foliage with delayed flowering (J. McIntyre, pers. obs 2004), which
may be attractive to females for oviposition sites. Consumption of P. neomexicanus
later in the season, during flowering or after eggs have been laid, could be
detrimental to the butterfly if P. neomexicanus stalks providing sites for
oviposition, eggs, or tents are removed. Cattle and elk tend to avoid consumption of
the sneezeweed, which may permit sneezeweed to flourish under grazed conditions.
Plant species richness and evenness, as a measure of butterfly nectar plants, in
35
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
response to light-moderate grazing, have been documented as increasing in some
montane rangelands (Rambo & Faeth 1999), decreasing in some (Belsky et al.
1999), and showing no difference in others (Curtin 2002). Excessive grazing
decreases the biomass, vigor, and architectural diversity of rangeland vegetation,
and alters species composition and ecosystem function (USFWS 2002). Presumably,
overgrazing, associated with grazing intensities and durations that exceed the
ability of herbaceous plants to recover or survive, would be detrimental to the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. Thus grazing management is not
only critical to sustainable grazing practices, but also may be important in
determining the quality of butterfly habitat.
Environmental factors such as climate, geology, hydrology, topography, or nitrogen
deposition may accentuate grazing effects (Brown & McDonald 1995, Weiss 1999,
USFWS 2002). In the Southwest, where rangelands are water-limited, setting the
optimal timing, duration, and intensity for grazing depends primarily on short- and
long-term precipitation trends (Brown, Valone, & Curtin 1997). Spring grazing
during dry periods can intensify grazing pressure upon P. neomexicanus, as it can
be among the few available green plants (Pittenger & Yori 2003). During drought
years, it may be necessary to reduce grazing pressure by decreasing the number of
cattle at a site, delaying the onset of spring seasonal grazing, or shortening the time
livestock are in an area in order for plants to develop enough below-ground and
above-ground biomass to withstand herbivory and disturbance. Constant cattle
presence in wetlands and drainages can alter soil properties, microtopography, and
overland water flow through soil compaction, erosion, and dessication, and removal
of herbaceous plants and litter. Over time, this serves to create drier conditions in
riparian areas, wetlands, and drainages as the water table is lowered (Belsky et al.
1999, Kreuper et al. 2003). Reduced access to moisture may inhibit host and nectar
plant growth and have a negative affect on the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly.
Grazing interacts with other variables such as historic and current human land use
and fire management strategies. The combination of grazing and recreational use
may pose a greater threat to the persistence of the butterfly through increased
disturbance, but preliminary data comparing larvae and adult butterflies exposed to
grazing and recreational use has been inconclusive (Forest Service 2003). In most
of the montane West, fire suppression over the last 100 years combined with logging
and selective herbivory by grazers has enabled woody species to encroach into
meadow habitat (Belsky & Blumenthal 1997, Knapp & Soule 1998). Pre-settlement
conditions of widely spaced, fire-tolerant trees within forests underlain by deep
grasses have developed into dense, spreading stands of smaller trees (Belsky &
Blumenthal 1997, Kaufmann et al. 1998). By consuming the understory grasses
and sedges that typically outcompete conifer seedlings and inhibit steady tree
recruitment, cattle have facilitated the dwindling of meadow habitat (Belsky &
Blumenthal 1997). As the butterfly may be dependent on habitat area and
associated microhabitat choices, persistent grazing along forest edges could affect
36
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
butterfly populations by reducing meadow area and connectivity. Grazing also can
diminish the spread of ground fires by consuming biomass and creating a landscape
with more exposed soil. The reduction of standing vegetation may have beneficial
effects by preventing fire expansion into meadows during sensitive life phases of the
butterfly.
Recent studies suggest that soil disturbance by gophers enhances conditions for
Penstemon recruitment and vigor (Pittenger & Yori 2003). Gopher mounds may
offer tilled, bare patches for butterfly thermoregulation and diapause locations
(Pittenger & Yori 2003). Contrastingly, gophers were agents of Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly larval tent destruction during 2003 as the gophers
either buried P. neomexicanus plants containing the larval tents or pulled the
plants into their burrows (presumably to consume) (Forest Service 2003). Results of
interactions between cattle and gopher activities are not yet understood. Also
unknown are the effects of interactions between cattle and the insect pollinators of
P. neomexicanus and V. edulis, the primary and secondary larval host plants of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, respectively.
Because information disclosing the relationship between the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly and domestic livestock grazing remains to be researched, how
the butterfly will respond to the proposed increase in grazing area within butterfly
habitat is unknown. In order to create varied habitat structure throughout the
butterfly’s range, and reduce potential impacts to the butterfly from the
reinstatement of grazing, the Forest Service is committed to excluding Spud Patch
Canyon from livestock grazing for at least 10 years. Covering the northeast portion
of the James Allotment, this area contains a total of 2785 ha (6880 ac), including 51
ha (125 ac) of occupied butterfly habitat (R. Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). The
USFWS has procured funding to begin research on baseline data in 2004 and 2005.
Additional funding is being procured to support research on the effects of grazing
upon the butterfly, and field research concerning this question is underway as of
May, 2004. By October, 2005, data will be available to assess the response of the
butterfly, associated vegetation, and soil properties to different intensities of
grazing. Over the next few years, the butterfly populations in grazed and ungrazed
locations and related habitat variables, including climate, will be monitored to
analyze relationships in response to grazing. From these data, an adaptive
management plan will be developed and implemented to permit flexibility in cattle
management in order to secure butterfly populations. Subsequent monitoring of the
butterfly and its habitat will provide an empirical and objective basis for
determining whether the management guidelines will lead to desired outcomes.
Creating optimal butterfly habitat that incorporates soil disturbance for
thermoregulation sites and increased Penstemon and sneezeweed growth but
minimizes soil compaction and damage to Penstemon and the butterfly, may involve
a mosaic of light-moderately grazed to ungrazed meadow habitat to encourage the
widest array of habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity.
37
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Nonnative Vegetation
Nonnative vegetation was cited as a threat to the checkerspot butterfly in the 2001
proposed rule by out-competing and reducing or eliminating food plants for larvae
and nectar plants (Forest Service 1995). A 1993 Forest Service survey found that
approximately 737 ha (1,822 acres) in the vicinity of the Village of Cloudcroft had
infestations of noxious weeds (Forest Service 1999). On the Sacramento Ranger
District, nonnative plant species such as Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens),
musk thistle (Carduus nutans), bull thistle, Canada thistle, leafy spurge (Euphorbia
esula) and others occur. Nonnative plants can affect plant community structure by
reducing native plant production and changing habitat structure and composition.
For example, Russian knapweed produces compounds that suppress the growth of
other plant species, allowing it to form dense stands (Forest Service 1996).
On May 1, 2001, the Forest Service signed a record of decision to implement
management for noxious weed control. This management included using manual
methods and herbicides to treat all noxious weed acres on the Forest. Herbicides
will be applied using ground spray and backpack sprayers (i.e., hand spraying).
According to the Forest Service, no spraying or application of herbicides shall occur
within occupied Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly habitat (Forest
Service 2001 in litt). In addition, in occupied Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly habitat, manual hand pulling of noxious weeds will occur during the adult
flight period (i.e., from June 20 to July 31).
Insect Control
As stated in the 2001 proposed rule, large portions of the Sacramento Mountains
were treated in 1984 with carbaryl or Bacillus thuringensis to control an outbreak
of forest insects. Carbaryl is considered moderately to highly toxic and is lethal to
many non-target species. Bacillus thu ingensis can kill larval stage of many
insects, including butterflies (Cornell University 1998). However, it is unknown
what affect these treatments may have had on the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly from the 1984 application because no data on pre-treatment
exists. According to the Forest Service, there are no proposals to spray for insect
outbreaks currently or in the future.
r
B. Over-utilization for Commercial, Recreation, Science, or Education - Collecting
As previously stated, due to their conspicuous nature, butterflies in the genus
Euphydryas are widely collected and well studied, and are known to be restricted to
specific habitats (Ehrlich et al. 1975, Cullenward et al. 1979, Murphy and Weiss
1988). Listing has been known to increase the publicity and interest in a species’
38
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
rarity, and thus may directly increase the value and demand for specimens (Ehrlich
1989).
To protect the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly from collection, the
Forest Service issued a closure order throughout the region in 2000 that restricts
the collection of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly without a permit.
Pursuant to 36 C.F.R., § 261.58(s), the Forest Service specifically prohibited
“capture, collection, killing, possession, storage, or transportation of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, and of life stages or parts thereof.” Violation of
these prohibitions is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual or
$10,000 for an entity other than an individual, or imprisonment for not more than
six months or both (16 U.S.C. § 551).
C. Disease or Predation
Spiders, pocket gophers, ants, and birds are documented predators for butterflies in
the genus Euphydryas (Ehrlich 1965, Brown & Ehrlich 1980, Moore 1987, 1989).
Although the proposed rule stated that wasps have been documented parasitizing
the butterfly, there are no indications at this time that parasites or predators might
be a limiting factor for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (USFWS
2001).
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
This species is not listed as threatened or endangered under the New Mexico
Wildlife Conservation Act because New Mexico Department of Game and Fish does
not list insects (Wildlife Conservation Act of New Mexico 1978). Private lands
constitute about 50% of the estimated range of the butterfly. The threats on private
land are currently unknown (USFWS 2001).
The Village of Cloudcroft already has in place Town Ordinances that implement
local zoning regulations related to open space that are expected to benefit the
butterfly. The Village of Cloudcroft’s Village Code document states that Greenbelt
Zones shall consist of open space with no structures or commercial signs allowed.
Further, there shall be no overnight parking or camping allowed within these areas.
The Village of Cloudcroft will implement greenbelts in any annexed lands.
The County of Otero has drafted an ordinance that would require green belt or open
space set-a-sides for new subdivision development within the County. In addition,
the County plans on implementing best management practices for new construction
on private lands within butterfly habitat. These best management practices will
ensure that butterfly habitat is maintained or enhanced for any new development
on private lands within the Otero County. Management practices may include, but
39
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
are not limited to, recommending butterfly surveys, maintaining current habitat if
present, and establishing native plants that are associated with checkerspot
butterfly habitat. In addition, Otero County has drafted, and intends to adopt, a
County Resolution to demonstrate commitment to conservation of the butterfly (See
Appendix B.).
Pursuant to section 7(a)(4) of the ESA, the Forest Service has coordinated with the
Service on seven conference opinions concerning the butterfly since 2001. Activities
discussed in the conference opinions include: utility projects, recreation projects,
land transfers, fire management, insecticide application, vegetation management,
and research on the butterfly. Conservation measures have included butterfly
surveys, host plant relocation, habitat flagging, revegetation and restoration efforts,
monitoring, compliance reporting, seasonal restrictions, minimizing habitat impact,
and/or herbicide application restrictions. All conference opinions concluded no
jeopardy to the species as well as recommending that a regional conservation
strategy be developed for the butterfly.
E. Other Natural Factors Affecting the Species
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot is also vulnerable to changes in climate.
Thus, the effect of climate change is discussed in detail below. It should be noted
that this does not imply that the species cannot survive natural events such as
drought. Instead, it is being addressed here because it was disclosed in the
proposed rule to list the species. Although the species evolved in an environment
subject to periodic atypical weather events, it is worth discussing because it could
be an additive risk to the species.
Climate Change
Climate change and associated atmospheric effects are predicted to alter the global
distribution of organisms (Parmesan 1999, Chapin et al. 2000, Thomas et al. 2004).
Since 1951, the average minimum winter temperature in the Northern Hemisphere
has risen 2.9ºC while the average summer maximum temperature has risen 1.3ºC
(Crozier 2003). Other mechanisms of global change, such as rising CO2 levels,
drought cycles, and increasing nitrogen deposition may also impact species of the
Southwest. Although most short-term changes in a species’ distribution are caused
by natural population fluctuations in response to environmental and land use
changes, small trends may produce substantive effects in the long term. Next to
land use, climate change is projected to have the second largest impact on
biodiversity (Chapin et al. 2000). Climate change has been and will continue to be a
long-term threat to the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, and its effect
on the butterfly is unclear.
40
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Recently derived models have calculated extinction threats based on temperature
changes, rises in atmospheric CO2, geographical range size, biome type, and
species’ dispersal ability (Thomas et al. 2004). For endemic species with low
dispersal capabilities and small geographic ranges, like the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly, the probability of extinction within the next 50 years ranges
from 22%, based on minor temperature changes (0.8-1.7°C), to 52% with maximum
expected climate change (>2.0°C) (Thomas et al. 2004). Species that have good
dispersal and are not dependent on specific plants will not be affected as much as
species that have low dispersal patterns and narrow host plant distributions
(Warren et al. 2001, Crozier 2003). The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly falls into the latter category.
Climate change is expected to be of particular importance at high latitude/altitude
biomes (McDonald & Brown 1992, Halpin 1997, Fleishman 1998). For herbivorous
insects, temperature directly affects development, survival, range and abundance
(Bale et al. 2002). The maintenance of optimal temperatures for high elevation
species may involve range shifts up the mountain to counteract warming trends.
Moving up in altitude to keep cool may eventually translate into contracted habitat
area as the mountain ends or as survival limits determined by minimum
temperatures or exposure set an upper boundary. Phenology for plants and insects
is determined by the interaction of temperature and photoperiod (Bale et al. 2002).
If range shifts of the butterfly, its host and nectar plants, and their pollinators do
not occur together, this may affect the butterfly by limiting the availability or
productivity of its food plants (Crozier 2003).
Another facet of climate change that could impact the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is the multidecadal drought cycle (McCabe et al. 2004).
Drought is known to cause a decrease in the population sizes of some butterfly
species (Ehrlich et al. 1980) and cause population extinctions (Murphy & Weiss
1988, Thomas et al. 1996, Boughton 1999). Other than inducing larval death by
dessication, drought conditions may reduce growth and nutritional content of the
host plants, which could stunt the butterfly’s growth and prohibit the completion of
its life cycle. For example, drought in California between 1975-77 is associated with
the extinction of several E. editha populations and the decline of E. chalcedona
populations, although a few montane populations of Euphydryas remained stable or
experienced population increases from local orographic effects (Ehrlich et al. 1980).
Negatively affected populations failed to survive due to: the lack of host plant
germination, causing low host plant densities; drought stress on the available host
plants, leading to rapid senescence before oviposition could occur; intraspecific
competition for the few surviving host plants; and the resulting inability of larvae to
become large enough to enter diapause (Ehrlich et al. 1980). A different study
suggests that two populations of the Bay Checkerspot, E. e. bayensis, became
extinct due to a combination of habitat loss and precipitation fluctuations
(McLaughlin et al. 2002). Models have not ruled out the chance of a multi-decadal
41
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
drought, occurring in a 50-80 year cycle and related to variations in the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation, co-occurring with a smaller-scale Pacific Decadal
Oscillation, which regulates the El Nino Southern Oscillation pattern (McCabe et
al. 2004). Should these two cycles amplify one another a megadrought may result,
which could pose serious problems for the maintenance of the butterfly’s host plants
and, consequently, the butterfly.
Current drought conditions in New Mexico are already impacting the local climates.
Recently, the Sacramento Mountains have experienced higher average winter
temperatures resulting in lower snow accumulation (D. Salas pers. comm. 2004).
Warmer temperatures and the loss of precipitation have created drier soils in the
spring and decreased spring runoff from melting snow (D. Salas pers. comm. 2004).
Specific temperature and moisture impacts upon the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly, the plants P. neomexicanus, V. edulis, and H. hoopesii, and
their pollinators are presently unknown. However, reduced quantity and duration
of spring soil moisture may decrease water availability to spring plants and
diapausing larvae. Furthermore, earlier increased spring temperatures could alter
reproductive phenologies that could diminish butterfly populations.
Climate change can affect the resilience of an ecosystem, by weakening its ability to
return to its original state or switch to a new set of conditions (Scheffer et al. 2001).
Butterflies are highly sensitive to both short- and long-term changing abiotic
conditions and have been deemed ‘model systems for understanding and predicting
climate change’ (Hellman 2002). Future climates that significantly impact butterfly
and host plant populations in the Sacramento Mountains may force the butterfly to
adapt to a novel host before becoming extinct. Changes in host preference have
occurred in this genus, usually as a result of migration followed by local evolution
(Radtkey & Singer 1995, Thomas et al 1996). The uncertainty of the short-term and
long-term response of the Sacramento Mountains butterfly to predicted climate
change creates a situation that local management is incapable of addressing.
42
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
IV. CONSERVATION STRATEGY
This section describes the cooperators involved and specifies the approaches and
strategies for conserving the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. These
approaches and strategies are based on principles of conservation biology as well as
our knowledge of the biology and ecology of the species, providing a long-term
approach to the protection and management of the butterfly. Conservation biology
is defined as an integrative approach to the maintenance of biodiversity that uses
appropriate principles and experiences from basic biological fields such as genetics
and ecology; from natural resource management fields such as wildlife
management; and from social sciences such as anthropology, sociology, philosophy,
and economics (Meffe et al. 1997). Conservation measures are a complex mix of
biological, economic, and humanistic endeavors. The conservation measures below
are a set of tools and approaches that require implementation to become useful and
appropriate.
A. Cooperators
Below are the various cooperators that joined together to formulate this
Conservation Plan. These entities compiled information, developed conservation
measures, and recommended actions. The conservation of the butterfly will require
continued active participation by these partners. Each of these cooperators will
play a crucial role in the implementation of the Conservation Plan, as outlined
below.
Village of Cloudcroft
The Village of Cloudcroft, founded in 1898, is a small mountain village of
approximately 724 residents located within the Sacramento Mountains. Cloudcroft
is approximately 9,000 ft (2,750 m) in elevation and is located 26 km (16 mi) from
Alamogordo, New Mexico. The Village population has been essentially stable over
the past several decades with a slight decline in population over the past four years.
The local economy is primarily dependent upon tourism as opposed to the industry-based
economy (i.e., resource extraction such as timber) of the past. Today, outdoor
recreational activities include camping, hiking, hunting, mountain biking, off-highway
vehicle-riding, skiing, and snowmobiling.
Otero County
Otero County lies in south-central New Mexico extending to the Texas border.
Otero County is a co-lead with the Forest Service to identify problems and
implement restoration on public lands at the local level. The County role includes
acting as a co-convener of the collaborative process, providing socio-economic
43
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
information, facilitating community outreach, and incorporating knowledge and
skill from colleges and universities to provide scientific assessments.
Lincoln National Forest
The Sacramento Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest, headquartered in
Cloudcroft, manages 180,168 ha (450,419 ac) of the Sacramento Mountains. The
Sacramento Mountains are characterized as high elevational mixed-conifer forests
and meadows. The Lincoln National Forest is a mecca for outdoor activities that
attracts people from communities adjacent to the forest as well as Texas and other
areas. Recreational opportunities include camping, hunting, hiking, OHV-use,
skiing, star-gazing, and wildlife viewing. Several miles of trails and old railroad
grades are used by hikers, mountain bikers, OHVs, and cross-country skiers. No
designated wilderness areas occur on the Sacramento Ranger District. The mission
of the Forest Service is “caring for the land and serving people.”
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The USFWS is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting
and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit
of the American people. The USFWS manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife
Refuge System, which encompasses 544 national wildlife refuges, thousands of
small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national
fish hatcheries, 63 fish and wildlife management offices and 81 ecological services
field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the
Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally
significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and
helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the
Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in
excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to State fish and wildlife agencies.
The mission of the USFWS is: “working with others to conserve, protect and
enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.”
B. Conservation Actions
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly was proposed for listing because
of a variety of factors, the primary reason being loss and degradation of habitat.
However, many of these factors have been curtailed since the proposed rule was
published. Furthermore, there are continuing commitments to the long-term
44
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
protection and survival of the species as stated below. Thus, the actions outlined
below steer a course for what will be effective conservation (both short- and long-term)
of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. This outline categorizes
conservation actions into four types:
1. Protect and manage occupied and unoccupied Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly habitat on public lands.
2. Manage habitat and promote conservation, through education and outreach,
of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly on non-Federal and other
private lands.
3. Conduct research to fill information gaps and inform management.
4. Provide adequate regulatory protection.
C. Funding
Below is a summary of funding commitments by the involved parties. Funding is
necessary for surveys, research, monitoring, habitat enhancement, public outreach,
and further implementation of this Plan.
Village of Cloudcroft
The Village of Cloudcroft is dedicated to public outreach and education programs to
promote conservation of the butterfly. The Village will encourage interested private
citizens and organizations to attend meetings and participate voluntarily. The
Village will work with private landowners (in cooperation with the County) to
educate landowners about butterfly conservation. This includes, but is not limited
to, restoration of areas and planting butterfly food and larval host plants, and
communication with landowners through the local newspaper and Village Council
Workshops. Outreach and educational programs are planned for the local
community, within the Village of Cloudcroft and the County. The Village of
Cloudcroft will share in the cost of public outreach and education.
Otero County
Through the CPR program, Otero County is expected to contribute $100,000
towards threatened and endangered species and the butterfly. Specifically, the
County has allocated this funding in the category of science and monitoring. In
addition, the USFWS and Otero County are drafting a cooperative agreement that
45
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
would allocate funds for on-going research on the effects of grazing on the butterfly
and its habitat in 2005-2006.
Forest Service
Estimated costs incurred by the Forest Service associated with the butterfly efforts
since 2001 have been approximately $100,000. The Forest Service will continue to
allocate resources towards coordination with the USFWS on butterfly conservation.
The Forest Service has conducted a biological study of the butterfly between 1999-
2003 which was completed at a cost of $30,000. The Forest Service will continue to
fund surveys and monitoring activities. In addition, the Lincoln National Forest
will receive $750,000 from the USDA to conduct forest restoration and community
protection projects on the forest that will benefit the butterfly.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The USFWS has procured $13,000 for an initial research study of the effects of
grazing on the checkerspot butterfly. Using maps of occupied butterfly habitat
prepared by the Forest Service, this study will collect field data over the summer of
2005 in three canyons that will be grazed by May of 2005. Ecological variables of
these canyons will be compared to baseline variables sampled in 2004 prior to the
introduction of grazing. At each canyon, data concerning adult and larval butterfly
demographics, host and nectar plants, percent ground cover, soil characteristics,
topography, and climate will be recorded. In particular, butterfly larval and adult
densities and grazing densities will be compared to formulate adaptive grazing
regimes that will benefit the butterfly.
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is currently a priority for the
USFWS’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. This program has been working
diligently with the Forest Service and non-Federal entities regarding conservation
efforts related to the butterfly. For example, the Forest Service gathered P.
neomexicanus seeds from sites on the Lincoln National Forest. During 2003 and
2004, the Plant Materials Center in Los Lunas, New Mexico, in cooperation with
the National Resource Conservation Service, cleaned, graded, and planted P.
neomexicanus seed. The Otero County Chapter of the Native Plant Society of New
Mexico and the Otero County Extension Office (Master Gardener Program) have
expressed interest in being “foster parents” for Penstemon plants until they are
needed for community projects. In addition, these entities would like to be
advocates in the community for the butterfly and its larval and nectar plants, as
46
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
well as being “on-call” to assist with relocating and transplanting plants during
Forest Service activities.
The USFWS will continue to seek resources and funding for research, monitoring,
and surveys. In addition, the USFWS will continue to allocate resources towards
coordination with the partners on butterfly conservation.
D. Adaptive Management and Monitoring
Adaptive management is the process in which information is gained from
monitoring and research and is then used to modify future management practices.
In short, adaptive management is a feedback loop; if conditions deviate
substantially from predictions, management activities are adjusted to achieve the
desired outcomes. Thus, adaptive management is primarily dependent upon
reliable data from monitoring and research results. Adaptive management is a
crucial element of any conservation strategy that will be accomplished through
development of a monitoring program, research, and evaluation.
Monitoring is a key component of adaptive management and a needed activity for
implementation

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

DRAFT**************DRAFT*************DRAFT*************DRAFT*************DRAFT
CONSERVATION PLAN
FOR THE
SACRAMENTO MOUNTAINS CHECKERSPOT
BUTTERFLY
(Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti)
Developed cooperatively by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Southwest Region
Otero County
The Village of Cloudcroft
U.S. Forest Service – Lincoln National Forest
October 7, 2004
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Recommended Literature Citation:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 2004. Draft Conservation Plan for the
Sacramento Mountains Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti).
Albuquerque, New Mexico. 71pp.
Additional Copies can be obtained from:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Southwest Regional Office - Endangered Species Division
P.O. Box 1306
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
ph (505) 248-6920
fax (505) 248-8766
http://ifw2es.fws.gov
Cover Photo Credit:
Judy Bunn, Cloudcroft, New Mexico
Acknowledgments
We greatly appreciate the numerous individuals who contributed to the
conservation of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly and development of
this plan. Biologists who deserve credit for significant data contributions include
Julie McIntyre, Danney Salas, Rene Guaderrama, Eric Hein, John Pittenger, and
Steve Cary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff who contributed significantly to the
development of this plan include Dr. Stuart C. Leon, Julie McIntyre, Sarah E.
Rinkevich, and Tracy A. Scheffler. Michael Nivison, Ed Bunn, Gary Wood, Frank
Martinez, Johnny Wilson, Rene Guaderrama, Danney Salas, and Larry Cosper
assisted on the development of conservation measures. Dan Bryant assisted with
the development of the Memorandum of Understanding.
2
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti)
Conservation Plan (Conservation Plan) provides guidance for the conservation and
management of this species. The checkerspot butterfly is found only in high
elevation mountain-meadows within the Sacramento Mountains of central New
Mexico. On September 6, 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
proposed to list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly as endangered
with critical habitat. Habitat loss from proposed development, stochastic events
such as drought and wildfire, and threats from collection were stated as the reasons
for the proposed listing. Due to a paucity of data on population trend, no evidence
of a decline was stated. Since the publication of the proposed rule, there have been
reductions in the severity of certain threats to the butterfly. For example, the
Village of Cloudcroft has curtailed development outward into butterfly meadow
habitat.
Interest by local parties to proactively address conservation needs of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly prompted several meetings in
Cloudcroft to develop a conservation strategy for this species. Representatives from
Federal agencies and local governments prepared this Conservation Plan. A
Memorandum of Understanding was signed by these parties to confirm
commitments to the implementation of this Conservation Plan. The planned actions
in this Conservation Plan are organized in a step-down format used by the USFWS
in recovery plans.
3
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly feeding on sneezeweed nectar in
Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico. Photo by Julie McIntyre.
4
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................3
I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................6
A. Purpose and Goal ...................................................................................................................................6
B. Objectives of this Conservation Plan.....................................................................................................7
II. BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS............................................................................8
A. Taxonomy ...............................................................................................................................................8
B. Description .............................................................................................................................................8
C. Habitat...................................................................................................................................................10
D. Life Cycle.............................................................................................................................................. 11
E. Distribution ......................................................................................................................................... .13
F. Population Estimates......................................................................................................................... ..14
G. Population Structure .......................................................................................................................... ..16
III. STATUS AND THREATS................................................................................................................. ..20
A. Destruction, Modification, or Fragmentation of Habitat .................................................................. .20
B. Over-utilization for Commercial, Recreation, Science, or Education - Collecting .......................... ..38
C. Disease or Predation......................................................................................................................... ...39
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms............................................................................ ....39
E. Other Natural Factors Affecting the Species...................................................................................... 40
IV. CONSERVATION STRATEGY.......................................................................................................... 43
A. Cooperators........................................................................................................................................... 43
B. Conservation Actions ............................................................................................................................ 44
C. Funding................................................................................................................................................. 45
D. Adaptive Management and Monitoring .............................................................................................. 47
E. Research .............................................................................................................................................. 48
F. Stepdown Outline of Conservation Actions........................................................................................ 49
G. Narrative Outline for Conservation Actions....................................................................................... 52
V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .................................................................................................... 61
VI. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 66
VII. LITERATURE CITED....................................................................................................................... 69
FIGURES
Figure 1. Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.......................................................................... 9
Figure 2. Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.......................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Post-diapause caterpillar ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Pupal case .................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 5. Butterfly habitat in Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico ................................................... 10
Figure 6. Butterfly habitat in Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico ....................................................10
Figure 7. New Mexico penstemon, Penstemon neomexicanus ............................................................. .11
Figure 8. Orange sneezeweed, Helenium hoopesii ................................................................................. 11
5
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti) is
a high elevation, mountain meadow butterfly endemic to the Sacramento
Mountains, located in south-central New Mexico. On September 6, 2001, the
USFWS proposed to list the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly as
endangered with critical habitat under the authority of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq.). This species’ known range is
within a 9.7 kilometer (km) or 6 mile (mi) radius around the Village of Cloudcroft,
New Mexico, in open meadows within mixed-conifer forest at elevations between
2440 to 2740 meters (m) or 8000 to 9000 feet (ft). The species is proposed
endangered due to habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, stochastic events
such as drought and wildfire, and over-collection.
In January 2004, local, regional, and Federal representatives began collaboration on
a plan to protect the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly and conserve the
species’ limited habitat. The USFWS formed the collaborative working group in
response to new information about the species and its habitat, reductions in the
severity and imminence of certain threats since the publication of the September 6,
2001, proposed rule to list the butterfly, and interest by local parties to proactively
address conservation needs of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
This Conservation Plan for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
represents a collaborative effort between Federal agencies and local governments.
The most current information on the butterfly’s life history, habitat needs, and
status has been assembled. A comprehensive discussion of the known threats to
this species is included. Conservation measures have been developed for the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly with an accompanying
implementation schedule. The general approach is a combination of protection of
both occupied meadow habitats as well as meadow habitat that is unoccupied but
that has the vegetational attributes important to the butterfly. Following an
adaptive management concept, this Conservation Plan may be modified as needed
in response to management, monitoring, and research data. Yearly meetings are
planned with the partners and all other interested parties pursuant to the
Memorandum of Understanding (see Appendix A).
A. Purpose and Goal
The primary purpose of the Conservation Plan is to develop, coordinate, and
implement conservation actions to alleviate known threats to the Sacramento
6
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Mountains checkerspot butterfly. The goal of the plan is to manage occupied and
unoccupied habitat on both public and private lands. In addition, the plan
identifies information gaps that need to be addressed to inform long-term
conservation and management. After reviewing the species’ life history, habitat
requirements, and threats, the plan identifies the specific conservation measures,
agreed upon by participating parties and signatories, which will be taken to achieve
the goal.
B. Objectives of this Plan
Conservation measures needed for the continued existence of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly focus on four primary objectives. In order to
alleviate known threats to the species, the conservation measures must:
1. Eliminate the present destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species
habitat or range, and identify and implement measures to curb and control
future threats to the species and its habitat;
2. Ensure that over-utilization of the species for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes does not occur;
3. Ensure adequate protection of the species through agreements and regulatory
measures.
4. Continue to support research, public outreach, and education.
7
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
II. BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
A. Taxonomy
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti
(Ferris & R. W. Holland), is a member of the brush-footed butterfly family
(Nymphalidae) within the subfamily Melitaeinae (checkerspots and fritillaries).
The E. chalcedona complex, or ‘variable checkerspots’, a group distributed across
western North America, currently consists of three distinct species, E. chalcedona,
E. colon, and E. anicia, and 38 subspecies (Ferris & Brown 1981, Glassberg 2001).
The subspecies E. a. cloudcrofti was first described as Occidryas anicia cloudcrofti
by Ferris and Holland in 1980, based on 162 adult specimens collected at the Pines
campground, 1.6 km (1 mi) northeast of Cloudcroft (Ferris & Holland 1980).
Subspecies are differentiated based on wing shape and coloration, the morphology of
male genitalia, and host plant selection (Holdren & Ehrlich 1982, Austin et al.
2003). According to Ferris and Holland (1980), the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot is most closely related to E. anicia chuskae (Ferris & R. W. Holland), a
subspecies found above 2288 m (7500 ft) in the Chuska Mountains of northwestern
New Mexico. The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly appears to have
been geographically isolated from sister taxa during climate changes following the
Pleistocene era, resulting in the unique phenotypic variation and local adaptation
present in the subspecies today (Pittenger & Yori 2003).
B. Description
Adult Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies have a wingspan of
approximately 5 centimeters (cm) or 2 inches (in). The dorsal (top) sides of the
wings are checkered with dark brown, red, orange, white, and black spots and lines
(Figure 1). Markings on the ventral (bottom) sides of the wings resemble the dorsal
sides, with alternating orange and cream-colored checkered bands outlined in black.
The body is black with rust-colored hairs on the head and whitish hairs on the
thorax (middle segment containing the legs) (Figure 2). The abdomen is black with
light horizontal stripes and a circle of yellowish hairs at the end of the abdomen.
Females tend to be slightly larger than males, and the female abdomen is more
rounded in shape compared to the tapered male abdomen. The antennae are tipped
with yellow-orange clubs, the legs are orange, and the eyes are brown (Glassberg
2001). Prediapause larvae of the butterfly (the August to October larval stage
before the winter inactive phase) range from 0.5 to 1.0 cm (0.2 to 0.4 in) in length
and change from bare, brownish larvae to wooly, black caterpillars with orange
hairs. Post-diapause larvae (larvae that emerge in the spring after the hibernation
stage) are larger caterpillars, with an average length 1.8 cm (0.7 in), a minimum
length of 1.3 cm (0.5 in), and a maximum length of 2.5 cm (1.0 in) (Pittenger & Yori
8
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
2003). Caterpillars are marked with black, linear patterns, orange spots, and black,
bristly tubercles protruding from a smooth, cream-colored body (Figure 3). The
pupal case, or chrysalis, has a striking pattern of symmetrical black, rust-colored,
and yellow marks upon a whitish background and is approximately 1.5-2.0 cm (0.6-
0.8 in) long and 0.8 cm (0.3 in) wide (Figure 4). Chrysalises generally are attached
to a stiff vertical structure ranging from 25 cm (1 ft) to 175 cm (7 ft) above the
substrate, although they are rarely encountered.
Figure 1. Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly. Photo by J. McIntyre.
Figure 2. Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly. Photo by J.
McIntyre.
Figure 3. Post-diapause caterpillar. Photo by
J. McIntyre.
Figure 4. Pupal case. Photo by J.
McIntyre.
9
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
C. Habitat
Known records indicate that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
inhabits meadows within the upper montane and subalpine mixed-conifer forest
(Lower Canadian Zone) at an elevation between 2,380 and 2,750 m (7,800 and 9,000
ft) in the vicinity of the Village of Cloudcroft, Otero County, New Mexico (Figures 5-
6). The adult butterfly is often found in association with the larval food plants, New
Mexico penstemon (Penstemon neomexi anus Wooton and Standley) and valerian
(Valeriana edulis Nutt.), and adult nectar sources such as orange sneezeweed
(Helenium hoopesii Gray, also named Hymenoxys hoopesii). Specialist insects, such
as the Sacramento Mountain checkerspot butterfly, typically are highly selective of
oviposition (egg-laying) sites and larval food sources, and are not known to survive
far from their host plants (Janz 2003). P. neomexicanus, the primary host plant, is
a narrowly endemic perennial forb (Sivinski & Knight 1996) (Figure 7). It grows in
south-central New Mexico, within Lincoln and Otero counties, in the Capitan and
Sacramento Mountains (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council Website 2002).
Throughout its range, the species is common and relatively abundant (Pittenger &
Yori, 2002). V. edulis may be a secondary larval host plant, particularly in early
spring if environmental conditions have not been favorable for growth of P.
neomexicanus (Weiss et al. 1988). Consistent with the role of a secondary host
plant, V. edulis has been used as a food resource in the spring by post-diapause
larvae, but eggs have not been found in association with V. edulis (eggs are
generally found only with the primary host plant) (E. Hein USFWS, pers. comm.
2004).
c
Figure 5. Butterfly habitat in Lincoln
National Forest, New Mexico. Photo by J.
McIntyre.
Figure 6. Butterfly habitat in Lincoln
National Forest, New Mexico. Photo by J.
McIntyre.
The preferred adult food is nectar from sneezeweed, (H. hoopesii), a native
perennial forb that flowers from mid-June through August, with the appearance of
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (Figure 8). Although the flowers
of H. hoopesii are most frequently used by adults for nectar, the Sacramento
10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Mountains checkerspot butterfly has been observed sipping nectar at other plants
including: New Mexico elder (Sambucus cerulea), yellow salsify (Tragopogon
dubius), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), spike verbena (Verbena
macdougalii), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), figwort (Scrophularia montana),
short-rayed coneflower (Ratibida tagetes), cutleaf coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata),
musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Arizona rose (Rosa woodsii), Wheeler’s wallflower
(Erysimum capitatum), and wild onion (Allium spp.) (Pittenger & Yori 2003, G.
Wood photo 2004, J. McIntyre, pers. obs. 2004). Other plants that have been
documented in butterfly habitat include: arrowleaf groundsel (Senecia triangularis),
curly-cup gumplant (Grindelia squarrosa), figworts (Scrophularia sp.), penstemon
(Penstemon sp.), skyrocket (Ipomopsis aggregata), and milkweed (Asclepias sp.),
(Forest Service 1999d).
Figure 7. New Mexico penstemon Penstemon
neomexicanus Photo by J. McIntyre.
Figure 8. Orange sneezeweed Helenium
hoopesii Photo by J. McIntyre.
A survey of ground cover characteristics associated with habitats occupied by
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly post-diapause larvae found a
relationship of 37% vegetation, 33% bare ground, 25% litter, 3% rock, and 2% P.
neomexicanus (Pittenger & Yori 2003). The vegetation cover in this survey
consisted mainly of grasses (18% of the total ground cover) (Pittenger & Yori 2003).
Precise soil associations for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly are
unknown. Based on field observations, P. neomexicanus prefers well-drained,
sandy to rocky loams that are situated just above drainage areas, whereas H.
hoopesii tends to be found in more mesic soils occurring at the bottom of drainages.
D. Life Cycle
The life cycle of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is usually
univoltine, producing a maximum of one generation of adults per year under
favorable conditions (E. Hein, pers. comm. 2004). If environmental conditions are
not conducive to completing the life cycle, larvae can remain in an inactive state
(diapause) for more than one year (E. Hein, pers. comm. 2004). Individual adults
11
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
live up to 14 days within a 4 to 6 week flight period between June and August (E.
Hein, pers. comm. 2004). The emergence of adult butterflies from pupation is
staggered during the flight season, with peak emergence in the second week of
flight (USFWS 2001). Males typically eclose (emerge as a butterfly after pupation)
prior to females. Females are mated within days after their emergence, usually on
the first day of emergence for other Euphydryas species (Ehrlich et al. 1975,
USFWS 2003). Oviposition for Sacramento Mountain checkerspot butterflies has
been recorded only on the primary host plant, P. neomexicanus. Typically, a cluster
of 10-100 eggs is laid on the underside of a P. neomexicanus leaf in July or August.
A female butterfly can lay 2-3 sets of eggs in her lifetime, but the majority of eggs
fail to reach adulthood (White 1986, Erhlich & Hanski 2004). After about 10 days,
larvae hatch, cluster together, form a larval tent (communal webs spun by larvae)
and consume the host plants. Throughout the 1st through 4th larval instars
(growth phases between molts), larvae feed on host plants close to the larval tent
and are referred to as pre-diapause larvae.
Between September and October, half-grown larvae in the 4th or 5th instar enter
an obligatory and extended diapause, generally as the food plants die back in the
fall from freezing. The diapause stage is similar to hibernation, involving a
decrease in metabolism and a thickening of the skin, enabling the resting larvae to
survive winter conditions without feeding or becoming dessicated. Exact diapause
locations are unknown; however, distances of travel from the larval tent to diapause
sites are probably restricted due to the small size and slow movement of the pre-diapause
larvae. It is speculated that diapause larvae remain in leaf or grass litter
near the base of shrubs, under the bark of conifers, or in the loose soils associated
with pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) mounds (Moore 1989, E. Hein, pers. comm.
2004). Diapausing larvae of other Euphydryas species have been observed curled
up beneath rocks or sticks, and wrapped in a light webbing (USFWS 2003).
In early spring (March-April) diapause is broken and larvae (now post-diapause
larvae) locate and feed on P. neomexicanus and possibly V. edulis as they grow
through three to four more instars before pupating (entering the inactive stage
within a chrysalis). Two to three months later, adults eclose from pupation in mid-summer
(June-July). Triggers to begin and end larval diapause and pupation are
unclear, but may involve photoperiod, moisture, temperature, and chemical cues.
For Euphydryas species, the timing of life cycle events with plant phenology
(flowering periods, in response to climatic and genetic cues) is crucial to the survival
of the butterfly (Ehrlich & Murphy 1987). Larval and pupal development, in
tandem with host plant growth, establish the phase relationship among adult
butterfly flight, oviposition, and host plant senescence. This chronology, in turn,
determines future food plant availability and mortality rates of prediapause larvae
later in the season. Consequently, highest survivorship occurs when the
developmental stages of Euphydryas species and their oviposition plants, larval
12
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
hosts, and nectar plants exist within the same phase, in spite of climate variability
from year to year (Weiss et al. 1988). Interaction between macroclimate and
microclimate mediates much of this phase relationship and microclimate varies
with slope and exposure of the terrain (Ehrlich & Murphy 1987). Thus, for the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly population, habitat diversity is very
important for capturing optimal conditions where phase relationships can be
synchronized in time and space in response to changing environmental conditions.
E. Distribution
The extent of the historical range of the butterfly is not known due to limited
information collected on this subspecies prior to its description (Ferris & Holland
1980). Earliest documented collections of the butterfly were made in 1963 at Pines
Campground, the type locality for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly,
1.6 km (1 mi) northeast of Cloudcroft at 2622 m (8600 ft) in elevation (Toliver et al.
1994). Due to their conspicuous nature, butterflies in the genus Euphydryas are
widely collected and well studied, and are known to be restricted to specific habitats
(Ehrlich et al. 1975, Cullenward et al. 1979, Murphy & Weiss 1988). Over the last
forty years, lepidopterists have surveyed and collected throughout the Sacramento
Mountains within suitable habitat and have not located the species outside of the
currently occupied locations (Ferris & Holland 1980, Cary & Holland 1992, Toliver
et al. 1994, Hager & Stafford 1999, Forest Service 2003).
As of October, 2004, the known range of the butterfly is within a 6-mile radius
around the Village of Cloudcroft, spanning an area of 85 square km (33 sq mi). The
butterfly occurs on lands administered by the Sacramento Ranger District of the
Lincoln National Forest as well as private lands. Within this area, the butterfly’s
distribution is patchy and disjunct. The known range of the butterfly is delimited
on the north by Mescalero Apache Nation lands, on the west by Bailey Canyon at
the mouth of Mexican Canyon, on the east by Spud Patch Canyon, and on the south
by Cox Canyon (Forest Service 2000a, 2000d).
To estimate the extent of existing Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
habitat, the FS devised a model using survey results and a Geographic Information
System (GIS)(Forest Service 1999b). The model incorporated non-forested openings
visible on 1:24,000 scale orthophoto quadrangles, preferred elevational ranges
(2440-2744 m or 8000-9000 ft), and known occupied locales. Based on the model,
the Forest Service estimated there are approximately 2,104 hectares (ha) or 5,198
acres (ac) of potential habitat (1 hectare is equal to 2.5 acres). Potential butterfly
habitat is roughly evenly divided between private lands (1,034 ha or 2,553 ac) and
Forest Service lands (1,070 ha or 2,645 ac) (Forest Service 1999a, 1999b, 1999d,
2000a, 2000d). To ground-truth the model and estimate the current range of the
butterfly, extensive surveys for larvae and adult butterflies were conducted within
and outside of the modeled potential butterfly habitat during the butterfly’s seasons
13
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
of activity each year between 1997 and 1999 (Forest Service 1999b, 1999d, 2000a,
2000d, Custard 2003). These surveys documented that the distribution of the
butterfly within the known range is discontinuous and generally located in non-forested
openings along drainages, roadways, campgrounds, and valleys. According
to GIS maps and the model provided by the Forest Service, about 46 of 202 ha (114
of 498 ac) and 240 of 813 ha (592 of 2,010 ac) of suitable habitat surveyed during
1998 and 1999, respectively, were occupied by the butterfly. Based on these data,
it appears that 15 to 35 % of suitable habitat is currently used by the butterfly.
Thus, an estimated 316 to 736 ha (780 to 1,819 ac) of the potentially suitable 2,104
ha (5,198 ac) are currently used by the butterfly.
F. Population Estimates
In addition to defining the actual range of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly, the Forest Service surveys are also directed at counting actual numbers of
individuals to understand population dynamics. Four types of population data have
been gathered: 1) observational data, or the number of total observations of larvae,
larval tents, and adults, combining all areas per year (1997-2003) (Forest Service
2003); 2) plot data, or the number of larval tents and number of adults counted in
established plots in each locality (1999-2003) (Forest Service 2003); 3) mark-release-recapture
sampling, where adults are captured, marked, and released and then
sampled twice again at 12 day intervals to calculate residence rates and population
growth rates (2002 only) (Pittenger & Yori 2003); and 4) transect data to estimate
adult population density (2000-2002) (Pittenger & Yori 2003).
Using the observational method, in 1997 and 1998, there were sightings of 595
adults and 114 larval tents (communal webs that contain larvae) at 15 general
localities. Observational surveys in 1999 documented 1,629 adults, 26 post-diapause
larvae, 800 pre-diapause larvae, and an unknown number of larval tents
at generally the same localities (Forest Service 1999a 1999b, 1999d, Pittenger
1999). Surveys during 2000 documented approximately 1,000 adults, 26 post-diapause
larvae, and 157 larval tents (Forest Service 2000a, 2000d). No new
butterfly localities were documented during the 2000 field season, although the
known range of the butterfly was expanded slightly (Forest Service 2000d). The
Forest Service also conducted surveys on 231 ha (570 ac) within the Smokey Bear
Ranger District, north of the Mescalero Apache Nation, during 1999, but no
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies were documented at this location
(Forest Service 2000a).
In 1999, the Forest Service established permanent plots in 10 localities (Bailey
Canyon, Cloudcroft Horse Pasture, Cloudcroft Yard, Cox Canyon, Deerhead
Canyon, Pines Campground, Pumphouse Canyon, Silver Springs Canyon, Sleepy
Grass Canyon, and Spud Patch Canyon). These plots allow for standardized
sampling with results that can be compared in the same location from year to year.
14
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Total larval tent numbers tallied from each set of plots reveal a decreasing trend in
larval tent numbers from 1999 to 2003. Collective surveys from plots within all
sites found 139 larval tents in 1999, 138 tents in 2000, 65 tents in 2001, 74 tents in
2002, 52 tents in 2003, and 46 tents in fall of 2004 (Forest Service 2003, D. Salas,
pers. comm. 2004). Several interpretations can be reached from this data: (1) the
trend may be indicative of a declining butterfly population; (2) the butterfly
population may be fluctuating in response to the drought of the past several years,
and may increase in response to the more moist conditions of this past year, or more
favorable conditions in the future; (3) some tents have disintegrated due to the large
amounts of rain and hail received in butterfly habitat between August and October
of 2004, but the larvae could still be persisting in other tents or habitat crevices; (4)
monitoring methods allow for only the number of tents per visit, thus missing tent
turnover which could involve more tents than are being counted; and (5) because P.
neomexicanus tends to grow in broadly-spaced clusters within the habitat, plots
established in 1999 may no longer be capturing P. neomexicanus patches if they
gradually move over time. Adult survey data for 2002 detected 60 butterflies within
plots only (Forest Service 2003). In 2003, the Forest Service tallied a total of 222
adults, both within sampling plots and immediately surrounding sampling plots
(Forest Service 2003). Adult surveys in 2004 of the same plots revealed 221
butterflies (D. Salas, pers. com. 2004). Data from the observation or plot sampling
methods have not provided a basis for estimates of actual population size, because
methods have been inconsistent and no formal population estimation procedures
have been used with these data.
Mark-release data were collected only in 2002 on sunny to partly cloudy, windless
days over a span of three weeks from June 28 to July 23. None of the 232 total
marked Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butteflies were found to have moved
between sites and only 4 butterflies had moved to different meadows within sites
(Pittenger & Yori 2003). Of the nine sites sampled during the flight season, marked
checkerspots were recaptured at two sites: Pumphouse Canyon and Spud Patch
Canyon. No marked butterflies were found at Apache Canyon, Bailey Canyon,
South Fork La Luz Canyon, Pines Campground, Silver Springs Canyon, Zinker
Canyon, or Forks Tank Canyon sites in 2002 (Pittenger & Yori 2003).
At Pumphouse Canyon, from a total of 130 adult individuals marked from 28 June
through 23 July, 2002, 35 individuals, or 27%, were recaptured (Pittenger & Yori
2003). From these data, the peak population at one time in Pumphouse Canyon
was estimated to be 127 individuals (Pittenger & Yori 2003). Thirty-one
individuals, or 89%, of the number recaptured remained at the meadow site and
four individuals, or 11%, had moved into different meadows within Pumphouse
Canyon (Pittenger & Yori 2003). The four individuals that dispersed to different
meadows moved across distances ranging from 460 m (1607 ft) to 890 m (2912 ft)
(Pittenger & Yori 2003). At Spud Patch Canyon, a total of 102 adult Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterflies were marked and released. Of these, only three
15
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
resident individuals were recaptured, representing 3 % of the population at this
site. No butterflies were found in different meadows within Spud Patch Canyon,
indicating no within-site movement for this community. Because it was unclear if a
loss of an individual from the population was due to death or emigration, Pittenger
and Yori (2003) equated the mean expected residence time with mean survival time
for this study. For Pumphouse Canyon, mean residence time was estimated to be
8.4 days and at Spud Patch Canyon, the mean expected residence time was 3.5 days
(Pittenger & Yori 2003).
Peak adult density, as obtained with the transect methods in occupied meadows,
differed for each site and for each year and ranged from an estimated maximum of
205 butterflies/ha (82 butterflies/ac) to an estimated minimum of 13 butterflies/ha
(five butterflies/ac) (Pittenger & Yori 2003). Density was estimated as the number
of butterflies observed per hectare (2.5 acres). At the South Fork La Luz Canyon
site, peak estimated densities were 42 butterflies/ha (17 butterflies/ac) in 2000, 50
butterflies/ha (20 butterflies/ac) in 2001, and 32 butterflies/ha (13 butterflies/ac) in
2002. Peak densities at Pumphouse Canyon were 53/ha (21 butterflies/ac) in 2000,
16/ha (6 butterflies/ac) in 2001, and 48/ha (19 butterflies/ac) in 2002. At Spud Patch
Canyon, peak densities each summer were 118 butterflies/ha in 2000 (47
butterflies/ac), 47 butterflies/ha (19 butteflies/ac) in 2001, and 31 butterflies/ha (12
butterflies/ac) in 2002. Pines Campground contained 16 butterflies/ha (6
butterflies/ac) in 2001 and 205 butterflies/ha (82 butterflies/ac) in 2002 at peak
density. Silver Springs Canyon had 13/ha (5 butterflies/ac) in 2001 and 105/ha (42
butterflies/ac) in 2002 at peak density. Data for Apache Canyon was collected only
in 2002, which had a peak density of 28 butterflies/ha (11 butterflies/ac). Bailey
Canyon contained 38 butterflies/ha (15 butterflies/ac) at peak density in 2002. For
each site, the timing of measured peak density differed, ranging from July 11 to
August 1. Regression analyses of total peak density of adult Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterflies from 2000 to 2002 showed stable trends at South Fork La
Luz Canyon (ungrazed by cattle) and Pumphouse Canyon (grazed by cattle), and a
slight downward trend that was not statistically significant in Spud Patch Canyon
(Pittenger & Yori 2003).
G. Population Structure
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies occur as small, separated groups
with low population densities (Pittenger & Yori 2003). Because the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly has a life history pattern similar to other
butterflies in the genus Euphydryas that exist as metapopulations, it is likely that
this butterfly has a metapopulation structure (Murphy & Weiss 1988, Harrison
1989, Hanski & Gilpin 1991). A metapopulation is a set of local, discrete
subpopulations that comprise a single total population within an area. Migration
from one local population to other areas containing suitable habitat occurs but is
16
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
not routine. At smaller temporal and spatial scales, individual subpopulations may
blink in and out of existence in response to demographic (related to population
trends such as births, deaths, immigration, emigration, ratios of females to males,
or distribution) or environmental impacts (Hanski 1998). Long-term persistence of
a metapopulation depends on the recolonization of extirpated areas or dispersal of
individuals to unoccupied areas from source populations so that the overall
metapopulation numbers remain stable (Hanski & Gilpin 1991, McCullough 1996,
Hanski 1999). Although overall population density estimates for the butterfly
slowly declined between 1997 and 2003, methods of population calculation were
inconsistent and conducted only at certain sites within the total range of the
butterfly. For the whole population, rates of extinction and colonization, population
growth rates, flight ranges, and average dispersal distances are unknown, so
precise metapopulation dynamics for this species cannot be quantified at this time.
Often, movement between areas containing suitable habitat (i.e., dispersal) is
restricted due to extrinsic factors, such as inhospitable conditions around and
between areas of suitable habitat or extensive distances to suitable habitat patches.
For example, the butterfly’s dependence upon solar radiation and air temperatures
to attain body temperatures necessary for flight prohibits travel through broad,
shaded patches of trees. Additionally, the butterfly appears to favor flight close to
the ground (E. Hein, pers. comm. 2004) and, like other Euphydryas species, may
avoid flying over objects taller than 2 m (7 ft) (USFWS 2003), such as buildings or
forested areas. For the endangered Bay checkerspot, E. editha bayensis, suitable
habitat patches separated from a source population by level ground were more
likely to be colonized than patches separated by hilly terrain (Harrison 1989). Thus
flatter areas, with low-growing vegetation within the flight range of the butterfly
may be necessary for successful dispersal.
For Euphydryas species, intrinsic factors, such as body size, sedentary habits, and
other behavioral dynamics (Ehrlich et al. 1975), also contribute to low rates of
migration. Generations of Euphydryas butterflies tend to remain at a site for many
reasons including: lack of rapid locomotion due to small body size with short legs
(larvae) and weak flight (adults) which prohibits long-distance movement; short
adult life span which offers little time to migrate; immediate mating of eclosed
females which reduces mating opportunities for migrating males; and the use of a
mating plug by male butterflies to prevent additional inseminations which
decreases receptivity and stimulates searches for specific oviposition host plants in
female butterflies (Labine 1964). In other Euphydryas populations, females are
more likely to emigrate than males (Wahlberg et al. 2002) and probabilities of
migration increase with age (Ehrlich 1965). Conflictingly, a female’s genetic
contribution to a population decreases with lateness in the season due to the decline
in egg loads (Harrison 1989), the diminishing suitability of host plants as they
senesce (Erhlich et al. 1975), and the lack of time remaining for pre-diapause larvae
to accumulate sufficient reserves before entering diapause (USFWS 2003).
17
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Areas of suitable habitat, such as sunny meadows with adequate host-plant, nectar,
structural (pupal attachment), and litter (diapause location) resources, may be
small and capable of supporting only low numbers of butterflies. As smaller pockets
of individuals are more susceptible to random demographic events, climatic
extremes, or disturbance, local extinction of these small populations may be
common. Furthermore, populations with fewer individuals suffer from higher
extinction rates because of an unavoidable increase in matings with close relatives,
or inbreeding (Saccheri et al. 1998). Inbreeding within butterfly subpopulations has
been linked to a reduction in egg hatching rate and larval survival, a lengthened
pupal period, which increases chances of parasitism, and a shortened female
lifespan which lowers the number of eggs laid (Saccheri et al. 1998). Thus small,
isolated populations of butterflies may experience an increased probability of
extinction due to a reduction in fitness, or inbreeding depression, from the
interaction among decreased heterozygosity (genetic variation), demography, and
environmental stochasticity.
To balance the local extirpations with recolonization events, dispersal is a key factor
in maintaining a metapopulation’s resilience. Dispersal is affected not only by the
amount of usable habitat but also by the spatial configurations of habitat across
landscapes. Corridors linking usable habitats provide access to additional resources
and are correlated with the success of foraging, mate-finding, and dispersal to new
meadows in response to environmental changes and natural disturbances
(Schumaker 1996). Additionally, a corridor must provide conditions that invite a
species to pass through the landscape at its own pace, a feature especially
important for small and relatively sedentary organisms (Beier & Loe 1992), such as
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, that may migrate in a stepping-stone
approach over more than one season (USFWS 2003). For the butterfly, travel
appears to be limited during the larval stages, with pre-diapause larvae known to
move up to 2 m (6.6 ft) and post-diapause larvae known to move up to 24.8 m (81 ft),
with an average movement of 2.6 m (8.5 ft) (Pittenger & Yori 2003). At the adult
stage, the average dispersal distance or the maximum flight distance is unknown,
but the maximum recorded distance of movement for this subspecies is 890 m (2919
ft) (Pittenger & Yori 2003). Thus, habitat loss can reduce the size of and
connectivity between pockets of suitable butterfly habitat.
The reduction in the extent of meadows and other suitable non-forested areas due to
commercial and private development in suitable habitat and small amounts of
conifer encroachment into suitable habitat as a result of grazing and fire
suppression on public and private lands (Belsky & Blumenthal 1997, Garrett &
Garrett 2001) may have decreased connectivity among some localities. Also, these
factors may have increased the distance beyond the normal dispersal ability of the
butterfly, making recolonization of some patches following local extinction more
difficult (Cullenward et al. 1979, Hanski 1999). Diminishing habitat area can
18
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
lower the quality of remaining habitat by reducing the diversity of microclimates
and food plants for larvae and adult butterflies (Murphy & Weiss 1988, Thomas et
al. 1996, Hanski 1999) and the opportunities for mate-finding and reproductive
success (Erhlich et al. 1975).
Based on available information concerning climate, topography, soils, and
vegetation, the distribution of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly may
have been more extensive and continuous prior to commercial and private
development, road construction, extensively grazed range conditions, and the
increase in trees. On a landscape scale, the isolated localities, tight associations
with food and nectar sources, and limited geographic range of the butterfly indicate
that the species is particularly vulnerable to perturbations (Ehrlich et al. 1972;
Thomas et al.1996).
19
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
III. STATUS AND THREATS
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly was proposed for listing as
endangered with critical habitat on September 6, 2001 (USFWS 2001). Section
4(a)(1) of the ESA lists five listing factors that must be considered when
determining if a species should be designated as threatened or endangered. These
include:
(A) present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range;
(B) over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
A species may be designated as endangered or threatened due to one or more of
these five listing factors.
The 2001 proposed rule stated that the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly is endangered as a result of destruction and fragmentation of habitat from
private and commercial development, catastrophic wildfire, habitat degradation and
loss of host plants from grazing, some recreational activities, encroachment of
conifers and nonnative vegetation into non-forested openings, over collection, and
vulnerability to local extirpations from climate changes such as drought (USFWS
2001). However, several of these threats have become less severe since the
publication of the September 6, 2001, proposed rule to list the butterfly. Below, we
address each of the previously identified threats and discuss the changes that have
occurred in the last three years. The result is an accurate, current picture of the
threats that remain to the species, so that we can prioritize and maximize the
effectiveness of conservation measures aimed at ameliorating remaining threats
(See Section IV).
A. Destruction, Modification, or Fragmentation of Habitat
The butterfly’s reliance on meadows makes it particularly sensitive to habitat loss
and degradation because meadows are easily accessed, clear of obstacles, and
inviting for human activities. Actions resulting in removal and ultimately loss of
host or nectar plants may threaten the survival of the species. In addition,
reduction and loss of habitat lowers the quality of remaining habitat by reducing
the diversity of microclimates and food plants available for larvae and adult
butterflies (Murphy & Weiss 1988, Thomas et al. 1996, Hanski 1999). Ground
disturbance and vegetation clearing can disturb soils, remove or eliminate diapause
20
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
sites (i.e., leaf litter, grasses, rocks) and larval or adult food plants, and kill or
injure individuals (Wilcox & Murphy 1985, Murphy & Weiss 1988). This type of
habitat loss or modification can occur through the following activities: development,
wildfire and suppression, inappropriate grazing, highway improvement activities,
recreation, and invasive plants and insects.
Habitat fragmentation can further separate isolated localities containing small
populations of butterflies, making these groups even more vulnerable to natural
perturbations and local extinctions. As discussed previously, the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly likely exists as a metapopulation (i.e., local
populations connected by dispersing individuals). Because many of the areas of
suitable habitat may be small, and support low numbers of butterflies, local
extinction of these small populations may be common. A metapopulation’s
persistence depends on the combined dynamics of these local extinctions and the
subsequent recolonization of these areas by dispersal (Hanski & Gilpin 1991, 1997,
McCullough 1996, Hanski 1999). For habitat specialist butterflies, open corridors
between occupied woodland clearings are known to increase butterfly population
densities by facilitating dispersal between meadow patches (Sutcliffe & Thomas
1996, Haddad & Baum 1999). The reduction in the extent of meadows and other
suitable non-forested areas may eliminate connectivity among some localities and
increase the distance beyond the normal dispersal ability of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, making recolonization of some patches following
local extinction more difficult (Cullenward et al. 1979, Hanski 1999). Therefore,
even around sites of human land use, it is important to maintain meadow
continuity and connectivity where possible to encourage dispersal and
recolonization.
Commercial and Private Development
Expansion of the Village of Cloudcroft and subdivision development were cited as
two of the primary reasons for the 1998 petition and were cited in the 2001
proposed rule. Approximately 50% of all lands that might support the butterfly are
in private ownership, where recommendations of habitat management for the
butterfly can be suggested but not regulated (USFWS 2001). Of the 1034 ha (2553
ac) of potential butterfly habitat estimated to occur on private lands, from 155 to
362 ha (383 to 894 ac) may be occupied by the butterfly. Non-forested lands often
are preferred by developers because these areas are less costly to develop (i.e., there
are no trees to clear and the land generally lacks steep topography and is accessible
from roads). Heavy clearing and mowing activities on improved (i.e., with existing
structures) or unimproved private lands, to reduce the threat of wildfire or improve
the residential appearance, could eliminate larval or adult food plants and/or
localities that are used by the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
Additionally, the conversion of native landscapes to nonnative vegetation (e.g.,
lawns or gardens) could fragment localities, eliminate movement corridors, or cause
21
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
additional loss of suitable habitat (Wood & Samways 1991, Holland 2001).
Development reduces blocks of native vegetation to fragments that are insularized,
creating a matrix of native habitat islands that have been altered by varying
degrees from their natural state.
Developed areas within and around Cloudcroft include two golf courses, 12 private
developments, several recreation parks, a ski area and a network of paved and
gravel roadways (USFWS 2001). The Woodlands subdivision, developed on the east
side of the Village, was constructed upon a previously forested area at the edge of
butterfly habitat. Additionally, Otero County is drafting a county-wide ordinance to
require contractors to consider effects upon sensitive, threatened, or endangered
species within development plans. This ordinance will obligate developers to ensure
that the butterfly’s habitat is maintained.
According to population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of
Cloudcroft has remained stable for the past four years with a slight decline since
2001 (Bureau of Business & Economic Research 2004) (see Table 1). In 2003, the
reported estimated population of Cloudcroft was 724 (Bureau of Business &
Economic Research 2004). According to the U.S. Bureau of Census (2000), there
were six housing structures built from 1999 to 2000 for the Village of Cloudcroft.
Furthermore, Otero County reported that eight to 10 new homes have been
constructed each year in areas that have already been subdivided (Otero County in
lit). Within Cloudcroft and the surrounding community, there is not enough
development to support a viable construction industry. Currently, ensuring the
supply of ground water to existing residences is becoming an increasingly important
issue to the Village. Thus, according to the Village of Cloudcroft, commercial
development is no longer being encouraged as stated in the 2001 proposed rule.
Table 1. Human population estimate for the Village of Cloudcroft from 1960 to 2003
(Bureau of
Business and Economic Research 2002, 2004).
Year 2003 2002 2001 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960
Village
of
Cloudcro
724 726 730 749 612 521 525 464
ft
National Forest Service lands surround the Village of Cloudcroft, making the
Lincoln National Forest the only lands available for annexation and village
expansion. In August 2001, the Forest Service signed a decision notice and finding
of no significant impact for an application to transfer public land to the Village
under the Townsite Act of 1958. The application included a formal development
22
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
plan that stated the Village’s intent to use the land as: 22 acres for a sports field;
42 acres for greenbelts; and eight acres for a wastewater plant. However, to date,
this proposal has not been implemented. The Village of Cloudcroft has stated its
intention to keep all new land annexed from the Forest Service as greenbelt. Both
prior to and during the formulation of the Village’s application under the Townsite
Act, various areas adjacent to the Village’s boundary were screened by the Forest
Service to determine their suitability for the purposes intended. Many areas were
liminated by the Forest Service from further analysis because of substantial
S, the proposed three-way
ansfer would be entirely beneficial to the butterfly because 80 acres of butterfly
abitat will become Forest Service administered lands.
e
environmental concerns.
The Forest Service is also in the planning phase of a three-way proposal with the
Village of Cloudcroft and the Otero County Electrical Cooperative to acquire 80
acres of butterfly habitat, 15 of which are occupied butterfly habitat. This land is
currently owned by Cloudcroft and is adjacent to the Ski Cloudcroft ski area. The
Village of Cloudcroft would in turn receive five commercial lots in the center of town
that total approximately one acre owned by the Otero County Electrical
Cooperative. The Otero County Electrical Cooperative would acquire 40 acres of
Forest Service land that is not butterfly habitat outside of town to relocate their
offices. According to the Forest Service and USFW
tr
h
Catastrophic Wildfire, Fire Suppression, Thinning
Due to the small known range and low abundance of the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly, the subspecies is vulnerable to catastrophic wildfires.
Although at least nine catastrophic wildfires have burned over 34,000 ha (90,000 ac)
during the last 50 years in the Sacramento Mountains (Kaufmann et al. 1998), a
significant fire has not been documented within occupied or proposed critical
habitat since 1916 (R. Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). Thus the effect of fire upon
this species is unknown and the natural fire regime in the habitat of the butterfly is
non-existent due to the lack of fire occurrence since the butterfly was recognized as
a subspecies. Because the butterfly is a non-migratory, fairly sedentary, host-plant
specialist, the whole population could be eliminated should the entire occupied
butterfly habitat severely burn. It is possible, however, that surrounding habitat
and unburned inclusions within catastrophically burned areas may serve as
butterfly sources to recolonize cleared areas, provided there are enough survivors to
form a viable population. Favoring low-lying meadows may benefit the butterfly,
since fires in the region tend to burn in a mosaic pattern and are less likely to burn
in meadows compared to surrounding forests (R. Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004).
Fuels in meadows may burn quickly and may not have pronounced heat effects in
the soil or seedbank (R. Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). The disturbed, rocky
areas where the larval host plants grow tend to have a lack of continuous fine fuels
23
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
w
ain, inferences based on historical patterns, current conditions, the
utterfly’s needs and life history, and the effects of fire upon other butterflies must
65% of the ponderosa pine/mixed conifer region at
isk for fire (Garrett & Garrett 2001), increasing the likelihood of a burn in forests
hich may not carry a fire as effectively as substrates beneath a forest. Re-starting
succession in these communities may or may not increase opportunities for
Penstemon, Valerian, or Helenium species’ establishment and growth. As the long-term
fire response of this subspecies, its required host plants, and meadow habitats
remains uncert
b
be examined.
A century of fire suppression, logging of old-growth trees (Garrett & Garrett 2001),
and livestock grazing (Waltz & Covington 2004) has altered the structure of the
Lincoln National Forest, creating novel fire conditions to which the butterfly and
other native species may not be adapted. Generally these conditions manifest as
changes in intensity, severity, duration, and timing of fires in response to season,
climate, fuels, topography, and community assemblages (Swetnam & Baisan 1996,
Touchan et al. 1996, Kaufmann et al. 1998). As systems that were previously
shaped by fire, forests defined by ponderosa pine 1,680-2590 m (5,500-8,500 ft) and
mixed conifer 2440-2900 m (8,000-9,500 ft) have been affected significantly by past
land uses (Touchan et al. 1994, Swetnam & Baisan 1996, Garrett & Garrett 2001).
Prior to 1900, the mean natural fire interval for forests in the Sacramento
Mountains ranged from 3-10 years in ponderosa pine dominated communities, from
4-12 years in the lower elevations of mixed conifer zones, and from 5-25 years in the
upper portions of mixed conifer areas (USDA 1992, Kaufmann et al. 1998, Garrett
& Garrett 2001). In the lower transition zones, frequent, low-intensity, surface fires
historically did little damage to the large, old-growth trees, cleared away flammable
organic material within the forest, and maintained meadows by preventing the
encroachment of trees into open areas (Kaufmann et al. 1998, Garrett & Garrett
2001). Spruce-fir communities within the higher elevations sustained less frequent,
mixed-severity fires, with both patchy surface fires and stand-replacement fires
(USDA 1992, Touchan et al. 1996). During this period, 10-15% of the forest was
occupied by meadows (Garrett & Garrett 2001). To have persisted until the
present, the butterfly appears to have been adapted to this natural disturbance
regime of fires. Forests, which were once open stands of mature trees with greater
moisture availability and higher biodiversity, have developed into dense stands of
small-diameter trees with less moisture availability and lower biotic diversity
(Garrett & Garrett 2001). Present forest conditions, combined with the current
drought, have put an estimated
r
surrounding butterfly habitat.
Depending on a fire’s severity and the butterfly’s life stage, the direct and indirect
consequences of fire upon the butterfly could range from deadly to inconsequential.
Catastrophic fires can occur as high intensity fires, where heat is released upward
into the canopy consuming foliage, or as high severity fires, during which litter and
duff consumption sends heat penetrating downward through the soil (Farris et al.
24
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1996). For the butterfly, an intense canopy fire concentrated on forested slopes,
while larvae are diapausing beneath the soil surface in low-lying meadows, may
have relatively little impact, as the larvae may be protected from flames, radiant
heat, or smoke. However, the same fire event during the pupal, adult, or egg stage,
all of which occur above ground, could lead to butterfly damage or mortality through
exposure. Nonvagility can be a significant predictor of an initial negative response
to fire, but it has not affected mean recovery times for some butterfly communities
(Panzer 2002). Alternatively, a ground fire involving deep soil heating due to the
formation of mats of imported grasses such as Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis)
could be lethal to any life stage of the butterfly (Society of American Foresters
1984). Grazing may reduce the ability of a meadow to carry a fire, by consuming
ne fuels and forming a discontinuous fuel pattern. This interaction between fire
utrient recycling and add heterogeneity to
he landscape, as opposed to severe, dry-season ground fires, may provide potential
fi
and grazing could be positive for the butterfly, at least in the short term.
The butterfly appears to select environments based on favorable microhabitats,
involving direct sunlight, mixed topography, host and nectar plants, and certain
ground cover characteristics (as discussed in the biology section). Fire alters
vegetation structure and composition, decreases litter depth, redistributes nitrogen,
changes soil chemistry, modifies soil moisture and temperature, transforms host
and nectar plant quality, and reduces overall cover (Anderson et al. 1989, White
1996, Siemann et al. 1997, Waltz & Covington 2004). Areas cleared by fire allow
grasslands to spread, and expanded areas have been associated with increased
butterfly immigration (Krauss et al. 2003). Opened canopies enhance the reception
of sunlight, a factor that is correlated with nectar production (Schultz 2001).
However, creating new openings may also invite bird predation along woodland
edges (Ries & Fagan 2003). Additionally, the removal of vegetation could make
individuals or eggs more susceptible to environmental extremes or other predators,
such as ants. These indirect effects of fire upon the butterfly may be significant
because the butterfly is so closely associated with certain plants and specific habitat
requirements. If fire increases the presence or productivity of host and nectar
plants, improves ground cover conditions, or modifies vegetative structure to
facilitate feeding, mate-finding, and travel, then fire would have a positive long-term
impact on the butterfly. Contrastingly, if fire eliminates the butterfly’s
required physical or biological habitat features, such as favorable microclimates,
host plants and their seed banks, or duff and litter layers for potential diapause
locations, butterfly populations could drop or subpopulations could go extinct.
Small, cool-season burns that stimulate n
t
benefits to the butterfly’s habitat needs.
Although data on the ecology of large fires in mixed conifer forests and meadows
(Allen (ed.) 1996, Farris et al. 1998, McCarthy & Yanoff 2003), as well as data on
post-fire butterfly and plant recovery after such fires are lacking (Waltz &
Covington 2004), a few studies have examined butterfly responses to fire. Results of
these studies tend to be species specific and span a range of outcomes. Fire has
25
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
caused the extirpation of populations of other butterflies in the genus Euphydryas
(Murphy & Weiss 1988; 62 FR 2313). Butterfly individuals in savannas in
Minnesota were between 0-5 times lower in number in burned areas than in
unburned areas (Siemann et al. 1997). For rarer butterflies in this study, results
suggested that natural population perturbations in combination with fire could
result in extinction (Siemann et al. 1997). On the other hand, butterfly
communities in tallgrass prairie experienced full recovery after fire within the
second year (Panzer 2002). Controlled burns in a Great Basin, montane watershed
did not significantly affect butterfly species richness or community similarity among
the following areas: 1) burned two years before butterfly sampling; 2) burned one
year before butterfly sampling; and 3) unburned (Fleishman 1998). Here, the total
area of burn units and controls comprised a small proportion of the total watershed
area (Fleishman 1998). Moreover, although burn units were larger than the home
ranges of many butterfly species in the central Great Basin, burn units were
situated within a matrix of undisturbed vegetation, allowing recolonization from the
surrounding area (Fleishman 1998). In an Arizona ponderosa pine community, fire
and thinning restoration treatments doubled butterfly species richness and tripled
species abundance of butterflies within one year (Waltz & Covington 2004). After
two years of treatment, butterfly diversity decreased by 25% and abundance
increased by 14% (Waltz & Covington 2004). When analyzed by family, Nymphalid
butterflies revealed a different trend, with a slight decrease in abundance for the
first year after treatment followed by an increase in the second year. These
changes, however, were not supported s atistically and much of the increase in the
second year was driven by greater numbers of migratory Nymphalid butterflies,
such as the painted lady (Vanessa cardui) (Waltz & Covington 2004). Species
richness of host and nectar plants showed little difference between treated and
controlled ponderosa forest in this study (Waltz & Covington 2004). Sunlight,
however, was significantly greater in restored forests, suggesting that butterflies
respond to the effects of fire
t
and thinning prior to forbs, and that thermoregulatory
fluences of light in and warmth for butterfly activities are important in this process
(Waltz & Covington 2004).
Some local information is available from postfire monitoring of the Scott Able fire
that burned 24 km (15 miles) southeast of the Village of Cloudcroft. In May, 2000,
the Scott Able fire burned 6,400 ha (16,000 ac) in the Lincoln National Forest,
covering elevations between 2250-3000 m (7000-9300 ft) (S. Cary NM Parks &
Recreation, pers. comm. 2004). The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
does not occur in the location of the burn, but P. neomexicanus and H. hoopseii can
be found (S. Cary, pers. comm. 2004). The response of the butterfly communities to
this fire appears to be largely determined by guild, or habitat/food preference (S.
Cary, pers. comm. 2004). Between 2001 and 2003, mobile butterflies associated
with shrubs, grasses, and forbs have shown a positive response to the fire, with
most species peaking in 2001 after abundant spring precipitation (S. Cary,
unpublished data). Riparian butterfly species exhibited depauperate populations at
26
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
burned sites, while butterflies associated with edge habitats are more plentiful at
burned sites (S. Cary, unpublished data). This intense, wind-driven fire burned an
estimated 0-10% of the meadows and 85-90% of the forested canopies within its
scope (S. Cary, pers. comm. 2004), meeting the qualifications for a stand-replacement
fire in much of the burned area (McCarthy & Yanoff 2003). Meadows
in mixed conifer habitat that did not burn were situated primarily along drainages
(S. Cary pers. comm. 2004). The first meadow area that the fire did burn through
did not burn completely and vegetation began coming back within a few weeks (R.
Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). These data suggest that meadows and drainages
ay be less likely to burn than mixed-conifer canopies, which could protect the
, if logging becomes too
tensive, forest habitats can become dessicated and homogenized which eventually
m
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly.
Fire management through thinning may not only reduce fire size and intensity, but
may also mimic aspects of stand removal from fire that may be advantageous for
the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. In general, old-growth
specialists tend to decline in logged forests, while local invertebrate species richness
increases as forest generalists persist and numerous open-habitat species appear
(Niemela 1996). Benefits to the butterfly could involve enhancements in meadow
size, early-successional plants, solar radiation to the soil surface, and habitat
connectivity, providing that these benefits outweigh any harm done to the butterfly
during the logging process. Grassland butterfly species diversity and abundance
can increase after clear-cutting but decline as secondary succession progresses
(Inoue 2003). In thinned and slash-mulched pinyon-juniper woodlands of New
Mexico, significant increases in butterfly diversity and abundance in a treated
watershed compared to an untreated watershed were correlated with greater forb
and grass cover in the treated area (Kleintjes 2004). However, in Indonesia,
tropical butterflies showed higher species richness, abundance, and evenness in
unlogged forest compared to forest that had been selectively logged five years
previously (Hill et al. 1995). But other studies in Borneo and Belize found no
evidence that selective logging had changed the richness and abundance of
butterflies (Willott et al. 2000, Lewis 2001). Canopy openness, close proximity to
primary, unlogged forest, and adaptation to natural hurricane and fire disturbance
were cited as factors that helped to maintain the butterfly communities (Willott et
al. 2000, Lewis 2001). At the landscape scale, however
in
could lead to a decline of sensitive species (Niemela 1996).
Woodland canopy reduction is important for open-habitat butterflies, which readily
move from meadows into corridors, but rarely from meadows into dense woodlands
(Sutcliffe & Thomas 1996). Also, open-habitat specialist butterflies are known to
reach higher densities in patches connected by corridors than in isolated patches
(Haddad & Baum 1999). The formation of cleared corridors or stepping-stone
patches by thinning could allow the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly to
migrate between suitable meadows (Maina & Howe 2000), thus encouraging
colonization of new sites or genetic exchange among the subpopulations. Pollinators
27
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
of the New Mexico penstemon and valerian host plants may also take advantage of
these corridors. Thinning has been associated with the establishment of plant and
butterfly edge specialists which helps to diversify the ecosystem and could provide
otential microhabitats or nectar sources for the Sacramento Mountains
itable butterfly habitat in the Lincoln
ational Forest may begin to exhibit the habitat characteristics the Sacramento
nsities in forests surrounding the meadows may effectively
ontrol the intensity of fires in the area and reduce the threat of catastrophic
ildfire to the butterfly.
Highway and Forest Road Reconstruction
p
checkerspot butterfly (Bergman 2001).
In the Sacramento Mountains, several locations adjacent to occupied butterfly
habitat have been progressively thinned since 2002. Thinned areas occur in Bailey
Canyon (215 ha, 532 ac), Pineywood Canyon (262 ha, 647 ac), Deerhead Canyon
(146 ha, 360 ac), and along Cox Canyon (72 ha, 178 ac). An additional 373 ha (921
ac) are designated for thinning in Apache Canyon and 81 ha (201 ac) are projected
for a different part of Deerhead Canyon (R. Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). Thus
far, neither the butterfly nor its host plants have been observed in the thinned
forest edges (R. Guaderrama pers. comm. 2004). Colonization of these areas may
take longer time frames, as an E. editha population in California took 12 years to
colonize a nearby clear-cut area within coniferous forest (Thomas et al. 1996). Over
time, thinned locations adjacent to su
N
Mountains checkerspot butterfly prefers.
Since 2000, the Forest Service has invested almost $11 million to reduce hazardous
fuels on more than 46,000 acres on the Lincoln National Forest, with funding and
acreage treated in 2004 nearly 3 times the 2000 level (CFRP Press Release No.
0255.04). As part of the Healthy Forests Initiative, in June, 2004, the Lincoln
National Forest received $750,000 to thin an additional 1,500 to 2,000 acres of
overgrown stands of trees adjacent to communities in Lincoln and Otero counties.
The goals of these thinning treatments are to reduce the threat of catastrophic
wildfire in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and to assist in the economic
sustainability of these communities. The Forest Service concluded that fuel load
reduction projects are not expected to change the existing habitat conditions for the
butterfly, or positively or negatively impact the butterfly (Forest Service 1999h).
The Forest Service has agreed to inform project managers and equipment operators
of butterfly locations in order to prevent damage to the butterfly during thinning
operations by redirecting the placement of access routes, machinery, slash piles,
and other project materials, and to monitor on-site during implementation of such
activities. Given the novelty of the extensive thinning approach in the Lincoln
National Forest, there exists no data to make adequate predictions concerning the
response of the butterfly to the increase in thinning. However, reducing ladder fuel
accumulation and tree de
c
w
28
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
According to the 2001 proposed rule, construction of roadways and associated
activities can eliminate or reduce the quality or quantity of checkerspot butterfly
habitat. During the late 1990s, the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation
Department (NMSHTD) improved a stretch of highway approximately 2 miles long
from State Highway 130 near the Village of Cloudcroft. As mitigation for impacting
butterflies and butterfly habitat during the road widening project, the NMSHTD
undertook a $30,000 population study that was conducted between 1999 - 2003.
Although the Service stated that Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterflies
may have been killed, results of the study conducted by NMSHTD increased our
knowledge of this species (see above). In addition, $10,000 was spent on
anslocation of plant species used by the butterfly.
Recreation Activities and Off-Highway Vehicles
p in the meadow areas, thus impact to the butterfly is
ot likely to be significant.
uires
mediate attention if it occurs in meadow habitats occupied by the butterfly.
tr
The beauty, openness, and accessibility of meadows in the Lincoln National Forest
make the butterfly’s habitat appealing to outdoor recreationalists, such as campers,
hunters, hikers, mountain bikers, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) users. The history
of light human impact in campgrounds located in occupied habitat attests to the
compatibility of the butterfly with limited human activity. There are fourteen
campgrounds in the Lincoln National Forest that over lap with butterfly habitat. In
addition, the Lincoln National Forest allows for dispersed camping (i.e., camping
outside of designated campgrounds) along a 91 m (300 ft) corridor on both sides of
existing roads (Forest Service 1986). However, according to the Forest Service,
most visitors tend not to cam
n
The ever-growing number of OHV users on public lands presents a significant
threat to the butterfly and its habitat. The definition of an OHV includes any
vehicle that can involve any vehicle that can travel off road, such as sport utility
vehicles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), minibikes, off-highway motorcycles, go-carts,
motorized trail bikes, dune buggies, amphibious vehicles, and snow-mobiles (Forest
Service Proposed OHV Rule 2004). Nationally, use of OHVs has increased 109%
since 1982 (Forest Service Proposed OHV Rule 2004), and an estimated “tens of
millions” of OHVs are in use today (Bosworth 2004). Consistent with this trend,
OHV use in New Mexico in general and the Lincoln National Forest in particular is
on the rise (Forest Service 1996). The majority of riders tend to remain on
designated trails, but a distinct minority drive off trails and do not ride responsibly.
The creation of renegade trails by these riders causes most of the resource damage
(Issa 2004), which takes place primarily in meadows, riparian areas, and steep
slopes (Forest Service 1986). As OHV use appears to be rising rapidly along with
the rise of traditional hunting, hiking, or camping activities in the area, the
understanding and management of OHV use is an important issue that req
im
29
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Although there is a dearth of scientific information concerning the impact of OHVs,
mountain bikes, highway vehicles, or roads on the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly, detrimental effects of off-road riding of vehicles or heavy foot
traffic in occupied meadows could cause mortality to the butterfly through direct
crushing of the larval, pupal, egg, or diapause stages and could damage adults as
they are stationary or flying. Clusters of soft-shelled, minute eggs of the butterfly
are attached to Penstemon leaves from 7 to 40 cm (3 to 16 in) above the ground (J.
McIntyre pers. obs. 2004). Not only are eggs susceptible to being crushed by
recreationalists, but also eggs can be brushed off of the host plant subjecting them
to an increased likelihood of exposure and predation on the ground below. Larval
tents contain from 10-100 prediapause larvae in late summer to early fall, so the
impact from tires on the butterfly population at this time may be substantial.
Springtime, post-diapause larvae in the genus Euphydryas have gregarious
tendencies, often clustering in areas of open soils, such as trails and roads, to
thermoregulate (Weiss et al. 1987, Osborne & Redak 2000). Adult butterflies using
roads or trails as thermoregulation sites expose themselves more to the risk of
mortality than those alighting at natural patches of open ground that are not
impacted by recreational activities. Other butterflies have been damaged by OHVs,
including the endangered Quino checkerspot, E. editha quino, which displays habits
imilar to that of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot (USFWS 2003).
OHVs in butterfly habitat could harm
he butterfly and its supporting ecosystem.
s
Indirect impacts upon the butterfly by recreational vehicles may include the
destruction of host and nectar plants, the modification of microclimates, the
disintegration of soil crusts, the compaction of soil, the relocation of soil, the
formation of ruts leading to erosion, and the alteration of the local hydrology (Smith
et al. 2002). The formation of trails or ruts may divert water away from host plant
sites, negatively impacting the food source of the butterfly. While some plant
communities may benefit from light physical disturbance, few plants are adapted to
withstand repeated disturbance by frequent OHV use. Alterations of physical
habitat in unoccupied meadows could limit the butterfly’s colonization of new
territory if environmental features preferred by the butterfly are degraded by
OHVs. Dust thrown up from dry soils may be detrimental to the butterfly by
covering its body with extra mass requiring an additional allocation of energy for
movement or possibly delaying predator evasion. Covering host or nectar plants
with dust may impede photosynthesis and plant growth, making plants less
palatable and visual cues for the butterflies less cognizable (Farmer 1993). Vehicles
are known to deposit toxic substances in the environment such as exhaust fumes
and oil, which may endanger the life stages of the butterfly that are associated with
areas close to the substrate. Thus, the use of
t
Recreational disturbance can impact soil, water, vegetation, fish, wildlife, National
Forest visitors, and cultural and historical resources (Forest Service Proposed OHV
Rule 2004). The growing magnitude and intensity of OHV use has been associated
30
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
with reduced soil depth, water quality, air quality, audio and visual aesthetics, and
a decline in grasses, forbs, and shrubs (Webb & Wilshire 1983, Northwestern Great
Basin Resource Advisory Council Meeting Notes 2003, Issa 2004, Forest Service
Proposed OHV Rule 2004). OHV use is known to increase: rutted areas on roads;
the density of tire tracks; soil compaction and runoff; wind and water erosion rates
that permanently affect the productivity of National Forest lands; trail connectivity
and fragmentation of habitats; the spread of noxious weeds along trails; disturbance
of wildlife and wildlife habitat; damage to cultural and historical sites; human
safety concerns; and conflicts between National Forest users (Webb & Wilshire
983, Watkins et al. 2003, Forest Service Proposed OHV Rule 2004).
icial effects on butterfly populations, depending on the adaptability of the
utterfly.
o
1
Studies investigating the effects of OHVs on insects are scarce. In one study,
however, the impact of dune buggies on beach invertebrates produced a 15% drop in
ground-dwelling arthropod populations on beaches with low level OHV use (Pearson
2004). Even heavy foot traffic can reduce specialist butterfly species richness (as
opposed to generalist species, that have broader distributions, longer flight seasons,
and a greater array of food sources) (Kitahara & Fuji 1994, Kitahara et al. 2000).
Although light foot traffic may benefit the disturbance-dependent host plants of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, intensive human foot traffic can alter
soil and vegetation properties, and in one case foot traffic produced a 68% decrease
in total above ground biomass and a 30-fold increase in erosion at a military site in
Colorado (Whitecotton et al. 2000). Yet, light impacts may be beneficial to some
butterflies. A Wisconsin study found the abundance of the Karner Blue Butterfly’s
host plant, wild lupine, and associated nectar-producing plants to be greater in the
median strip between vehicle tracks than within a track or 5 m (15.2 ft) beyond a
track (Smith et al. 2002). Lupine stem density and the proportion of lupine stems
with larval feeding were enhanced by moderate human activity (Smith et al. 2002).
Therefore, occasional low to moderate levels of human recreational activities could
have benef
b
Roads and trails also have been implicated as a source of mortality for many species
of wildlife (Haskell 1999, Trombulak & Frissell 1999). A review of all kinds of roads
revealed seven effects: 1) mortality from road construction; 2) death due to collision
with vehicles; 3) modification of animal behavior; 4) alteration of the physical
environment; 5) transformation of the chemical environment; 6) spread of exotics;
and 7) increased use of areas by humans (Trombulak & Frissell 1999). The actual
ecological impact of trails and roads can extend up 100 m into the surrounding
habitat forming a “road-effect zone” that represents a larger area of influence on
plants and animals than the dimension of the road itself (Forman 2000, Watkins et
al. 2003). In the Lincoln National Forest, roads and trails create an adjacent area
f soil disturbance, which restarts succession and may stimulate the germination of
Penstemon and sneezeweed. However, positive effects of roads and trails in
butterfly habitat may be offset by the increased destruction to the butterfly and its
habitat by unauthorized trails carved through meadows, and may serve to provide
31
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
access for butterfly collectors. Roads and moving vehicles also fragment habitats
and isolate invertebrate populations by impeding movement and dispersal (Mader
1984, Mader et al. 1990, Haskell 1999, Trombulak & Frissell 1999), which could
negatively impact the butterfly. Alternatively, due to the inviting thermoregulatory
qualities of roads to butterflies, roads may serve as corridors for butterfly dispersal
nd help enhance the colonization of new meadows (Tiebout & Anderson 1996).
hich the needs of
ecreation provision and resource protection must be balanced.
checkerspot butterfly from
otentially damaging OHV and recreational activities.
a
As New Mexico’s human population climbs, vehicular use and demands for
recreational access, particularly during the spring, summer, and fall months (the
same activity period as the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly), are
expected to increase (FS 1986). The FS estimates there are at least 1368 km (850
mi) of OHV routes on National Forest land in the Southwest, with at least 80 km
(50 mi) being added annually (FS 1986). The Sacramento district contains 415 km
(258 mi) of trails and over 1610 km (1000 mi) of Forest Service roads (Mountain
Monthly, July 2004). Maintenance of these roads is costly, as is the closing and
restoration of illegally created trails. The demand for riding opportunities versus
the resulting environmental damage creates a situation in w
r
To reduce the threats of OHVs and recreational activities upon the butterfly,
monitoring by the Forest Service of OHV use in suitable butterfly habitat is
currently underway. Meadow areas are being mapped using GIS technology and
renegade trails within meadows are being measured and their impacts on the
habitat are being documented. Recently, Frank Martinez, District Ranger for the
Forest Service, issued a statement to the Cloudcroft community to raise awareness
of proper OHV use and to help protect the Lincoln National Forest from illegal OHV
damage (Mountain Monthly, July 2004). Plans for education, trail design and
maps, set-asides in the form of meadow closures, and enforcement are in the
developmental stages to increase community awareness of where trail use is
permitted and to protect the Sacramento Mountains
p
Domestic Livestock Grazing
The issue of livestock grazing is important in relation to the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly due to the preference of both livestock and the butterfly for
meadow habitats along drainages and forest edges. Cattle tend to seek out the
moisture, forage, and shade found along drainage areas and at the interface of
meadow and forest (Belsky et al. 1999). The butterfly depends on the microclimate
and food plants associated with the moist soils of drainages, and possibly on the
habitat heterogeneity of forest edges for escape and diapause locations. Currently,
public livestock grazing occurs in approximately one third of the known occupied
butterfly habitat within the Lincoln National Forest (D. Salas, pers. comm. 2004)
32
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
and wild ungulate grazing occurs throughout the butterfly’s known range.
However, cattle grazing is expected to be reinstated on parts of the Jones Allotment
in May, 2005, which would expand the area of grazing on National Forest land in
occupied butterfly meadows (D. Salas, pers. comm. 2004). Precisely, of the 5,376 ha
(13,439 ac) comprising the James Allotment, 2,624 ha (6,561 ac) are expected to be
grazed by 70 cattle, while 2,751 ha (6,878 ac) are to be left ungrazed (R.
Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). The outcome of the interactions among grazing
egime, climate, and habitat type upon the butterfly is unknown.
y
rotecting the butterfly from fire exposure.
p
r
Grazing can affect the butterfly population directly by trampling, consuming, or
disturbing eggs, larvae, pupae, or sedentary adults (White 1986). Indirect effects of
grazing upon the butterfly include: 1) changes in the abundance and distribution of
larval food plants and adult nectar plants; 2) removal of herbaceous plant biomass
and litter ground cover; 3) overall alteration of the plant composition and
architecture of meadow habitats; 4) disturbance, compaction and erosion of soil; and
5) interactions with gopher activities and nesting sites of host plant pollinators,
whose presence may increase host plant vigor and fecundity (Scholl 1989, Archer &
Pike 1991, Fleischner 1994, Rittenhouse & Rosentreter 1994, Brown & McDonald
1995, Belsky & Blumenthal 1997, Donahue 1999). In addition, an indirect
interaction may exist between grazing, fire, and the butterfly. Cattle grazing tends
to form discontinuous distributions of fine fuels in meadows by opening up the grass
canopy, decreasing litter cover, and increasing the proportion of bare soil. As a
result, grazing may retard the spread of surface fires in butterfly habitat, possibl
p
The relationship between grazing and Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly
opulations is unclear based on preliminary surveys of larval tents, adults, and P.
neomexicanus host plants. Pre-diapause larval tent counts of the butterfly using
the plot method were tallied from 1997-2003 (Forest Service 2003). Of the three
grazed sites, larval tent numbers declined at two sites (Cloudcroft Horse Pasture,
Cox Canyon) and rose at one site (Pumphouse Canyon). Of the six ungrazed sites,
four sites yielded declining trends in tent numbers (Bailey Canyon, Pines
Campground, Silver Springs Canyon, and Spud Patch Canyon) and two sites
experienced stable population fluctuations within those five years (Cloudcroft Crew
Quarters/Yard, Deerhead Canyon) (Forest Service 2003). Different patterns emerge
for the adult butterflies using the plot sampling method. Adult counts using years
2001 and 2003 (2002 is omitted because different sampling methods were used)
revealed decreases within the plots at four ungrazed sites measured (Bailey
Canyon, Spud Patch Canyon, Pines Campground, Silver Springs Canyon) and
increases at the two sites where grazing occurred (Pumphouse Canyon, Cloudcroft
Horse Pasture), although grazing at Cloudcroft Horse Pasture was very light and
primarily by horses (Forest Service 2003). Plot counts of P. neomexicanus
individuals in two grazed areas from 2001 to 2003 displayed increasing trends at
one site (Cloudcroft Horse Pasture) and decreasing trends at the other grazed site
33
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
(Pumphouse Canyon). Of the five ungrazed areas sampled during this time, four
areas showed a decline in P. neomexicanus numbers (Bailey Canyon, Pines
Campground, Silver Springs Canyon, Spud Patch Canyon) and one site (Cloudcroft
Crew Quarters/Yard) showed a stable trend (Forest Service 2003). Several
conclusions can be drawn from these results: 1) sampling methods did not capture
butterfly population trends in relation to grazing; 2) grazing may not be a
determining factor of butterfly population patterns; 3) grazing by elk or deer may be
confounding results; or 4) other factors (climate, predators, parasitoids) may be
interacting with grazing to produce the population dynamics captured during this
rief period.
ts,
y
nd
in
aking
e
s
ashes for
,
a
nitrogen deposition in
e Bay checkerspot’s nitrogen-poor habitat (Weiss 1999).
are released from competition when more dominant species are consumed, or
b
Of the few known studies that have investigated the effects of grazing on insec
the majority have found that decreased grazing, from heavy to lighter or non-existent
levels, can enhance species richness for adult butterflies (Wettstein &
Schmid 1999, Balmer & Erhardt 2000, Kruess & Tscharntke 2002). A single stud
found no difference in insect diversity (including butterflies) between grazed a
ungrazed areas (Rambo & Faeth 1999). In support of these findings, overall
butterfly abundance increased as grazing intensity decreased in forested meadows
in northern Germany (Kruess & Tscharntke 2002) and a ponderosa pine-grassland
community study in Arizona reflected the same pattern, with a 4-10 fold increase
insect abundance as grazing intensity decreased (Rambo & Faeth 1999). T
different approaches, two studies concluded that grazing was beneficial to
butterflies (WallisDeVries & Raemakers 2001, Weiss 1999). One study showed th
number of butterflies per species, including 4 threatened species, rose with light
grazing and no grazing, but fell in response to mowing (WallisDeVries & Raemaker
2001). Butterfly diversity in this study was not significantly different between the
three treatments. The other study, in California, reported population cr
Bay checkerspot butterflies (E. e. bayensis) in areas where grazing was
discontinued (Weiss 1999). Following the cessation of well-managed cattle grazing
butterfly populations dropped and some subpopulations even became extinct as
result of the rapid invasion by introduced annual grasses that crowded out the
butterfly’s host plants (Weiss 1999). The grasses flourished in response to the
release of grazing pressure and the increase in atmospheric
th
The gradient among light, moderate, or heavy grazing is captured by grazing
intensity, or grazing density, and affects plant species in different ways. Plant
species that decline with livestock grazing are either damaged by destruction of
their reproductive and photosynthetic organs or are intolerant of trampling or drier
conditions that vary under different grazing regimes (Belsky et al. 1999, Kreuper et
al. 2003). Many of these are long-lived perennial forbs and palatable shrubs (Noy-meir
et al. 1989). Plant species that increase tend to be unpalatable species,
exotics, or species that benefit from disturbed conditions, sub-dominant species that
34
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
upland species that prefer the drier conditions created by grazing in wetlands
(Chew 1982, Ohmart 1996, Belsky et al. 1999).
Impacts of livestock grazing on native wildlife in Southwestern montane ecosystems
vary depending on timing, duration, and intensity of grazing. For the butterfly, all
three of these factors are important since grazing may affect the butterfly’s life
stages in different ways. The passive larval, egg, and pupal phases may be the most
sensitive and, if adult checkerspot butterflies live approximately two weeks, these
more vulnerable stages constitute roughly 96% of the lifetime of the butterfly. In
the spring, grazing can result in increased mortality of post-diapause larvae via
trampling, accidental consumption, and a reduction in forage quality (Pittenger &
Yori 2003). According to White (1986), the proportion of pupae crushed by cows
(~10%) was great enough to suggest that this might be an important mortality
factor of Euphydryas spp. in a moderately grazed California grassland.
Overgrazing can substantially reduce the availability of native nectar plants for
some butterfly species (USFWS 2001). The availability of nectar and the amount
consumed by female butterflies greatly influences the number of eggs produced and
subsequent adult recruitment and thus, long-term population survival (Murphey et
al. 1983, Boggs & Ross 1993). Overgrazing by stock animals has led to extinction of
some butterfly populations in the United States, including butterflies in the genus
Euphydryas (Murphy & Weiss 1988, Ehrlich 1989, Weiss et al. 1991).
Because P. neomexicanus and H. hoopseii appear to favor sites with disturbed soils,
the presence of cattle may increase the density of these species (Pittenger & Yori
2003), which could be favorable to the butterfly. However, forage quality and not
quantity could be more important to the butterfly (Ryan & Kuserk 2003) and cattle
herbivory and trampling of P. neomexicanus may reduce forage quality for larvae
(Pittenger & Yori 2003). In general, sites that are ungrazed or lightly grazed tend
to offer greater vegetation height and heterogeneity, which would provide more
microhabitats for the butterfly, compared to heavily grazed sites (Balmer & Erhardt
2000, Kruess & Tscharntke 2002). Observations of oviposition by female
checkerspot butterflies have been correlated with taller, flowering P. neomexicanus
individuals (Forest Service 2003), generally with wider stem diameters than
average (J. McIntyre, unpublished data). Cropping of P. neomexicanus by cattle
could reduce potential oviposition sites and, consequently, overall breeding success.
The timing of P. neomexicanus clipping could be important, however. Herbivory of
the meristem early in the growing season could stimulate secondary growth and
produce denser foliage with delayed flowering (J. McIntyre, pers. obs 2004), which
may be attractive to females for oviposition sites. Consumption of P. neomexicanus
later in the season, during flowering or after eggs have been laid, could be
detrimental to the butterfly if P. neomexicanus stalks providing sites for
oviposition, eggs, or tents are removed. Cattle and elk tend to avoid consumption of
the sneezeweed, which may permit sneezeweed to flourish under grazed conditions.
Plant species richness and evenness, as a measure of butterfly nectar plants, in
35
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
response to light-moderate grazing, have been documented as increasing in some
montane rangelands (Rambo & Faeth 1999), decreasing in some (Belsky et al.
1999), and showing no difference in others (Curtin 2002). Excessive grazing
decreases the biomass, vigor, and architectural diversity of rangeland vegetation,
and alters species composition and ecosystem function (USFWS 2002). Presumably,
overgrazing, associated with grazing intensities and durations that exceed the
ability of herbaceous plants to recover or survive, would be detrimental to the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. Thus grazing management is not
only critical to sustainable grazing practices, but also may be important in
determining the quality of butterfly habitat.
Environmental factors such as climate, geology, hydrology, topography, or nitrogen
deposition may accentuate grazing effects (Brown & McDonald 1995, Weiss 1999,
USFWS 2002). In the Southwest, where rangelands are water-limited, setting the
optimal timing, duration, and intensity for grazing depends primarily on short- and
long-term precipitation trends (Brown, Valone, & Curtin 1997). Spring grazing
during dry periods can intensify grazing pressure upon P. neomexicanus, as it can
be among the few available green plants (Pittenger & Yori 2003). During drought
years, it may be necessary to reduce grazing pressure by decreasing the number of
cattle at a site, delaying the onset of spring seasonal grazing, or shortening the time
livestock are in an area in order for plants to develop enough below-ground and
above-ground biomass to withstand herbivory and disturbance. Constant cattle
presence in wetlands and drainages can alter soil properties, microtopography, and
overland water flow through soil compaction, erosion, and dessication, and removal
of herbaceous plants and litter. Over time, this serves to create drier conditions in
riparian areas, wetlands, and drainages as the water table is lowered (Belsky et al.
1999, Kreuper et al. 2003). Reduced access to moisture may inhibit host and nectar
plant growth and have a negative affect on the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly.
Grazing interacts with other variables such as historic and current human land use
and fire management strategies. The combination of grazing and recreational use
may pose a greater threat to the persistence of the butterfly through increased
disturbance, but preliminary data comparing larvae and adult butterflies exposed to
grazing and recreational use has been inconclusive (Forest Service 2003). In most
of the montane West, fire suppression over the last 100 years combined with logging
and selective herbivory by grazers has enabled woody species to encroach into
meadow habitat (Belsky & Blumenthal 1997, Knapp & Soule 1998). Pre-settlement
conditions of widely spaced, fire-tolerant trees within forests underlain by deep
grasses have developed into dense, spreading stands of smaller trees (Belsky &
Blumenthal 1997, Kaufmann et al. 1998). By consuming the understory grasses
and sedges that typically outcompete conifer seedlings and inhibit steady tree
recruitment, cattle have facilitated the dwindling of meadow habitat (Belsky &
Blumenthal 1997). As the butterfly may be dependent on habitat area and
associated microhabitat choices, persistent grazing along forest edges could affect
36
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
butterfly populations by reducing meadow area and connectivity. Grazing also can
diminish the spread of ground fires by consuming biomass and creating a landscape
with more exposed soil. The reduction of standing vegetation may have beneficial
effects by preventing fire expansion into meadows during sensitive life phases of the
butterfly.
Recent studies suggest that soil disturbance by gophers enhances conditions for
Penstemon recruitment and vigor (Pittenger & Yori 2003). Gopher mounds may
offer tilled, bare patches for butterfly thermoregulation and diapause locations
(Pittenger & Yori 2003). Contrastingly, gophers were agents of Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly larval tent destruction during 2003 as the gophers
either buried P. neomexicanus plants containing the larval tents or pulled the
plants into their burrows (presumably to consume) (Forest Service 2003). Results of
interactions between cattle and gopher activities are not yet understood. Also
unknown are the effects of interactions between cattle and the insect pollinators of
P. neomexicanus and V. edulis, the primary and secondary larval host plants of the
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, respectively.
Because information disclosing the relationship between the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly and domestic livestock grazing remains to be researched, how
the butterfly will respond to the proposed increase in grazing area within butterfly
habitat is unknown. In order to create varied habitat structure throughout the
butterfly’s range, and reduce potential impacts to the butterfly from the
reinstatement of grazing, the Forest Service is committed to excluding Spud Patch
Canyon from livestock grazing for at least 10 years. Covering the northeast portion
of the James Allotment, this area contains a total of 2785 ha (6880 ac), including 51
ha (125 ac) of occupied butterfly habitat (R. Guaderrama, pers. comm. 2004). The
USFWS has procured funding to begin research on baseline data in 2004 and 2005.
Additional funding is being procured to support research on the effects of grazing
upon the butterfly, and field research concerning this question is underway as of
May, 2004. By October, 2005, data will be available to assess the response of the
butterfly, associated vegetation, and soil properties to different intensities of
grazing. Over the next few years, the butterfly populations in grazed and ungrazed
locations and related habitat variables, including climate, will be monitored to
analyze relationships in response to grazing. From these data, an adaptive
management plan will be developed and implemented to permit flexibility in cattle
management in order to secure butterfly populations. Subsequent monitoring of the
butterfly and its habitat will provide an empirical and objective basis for
determining whether the management guidelines will lead to desired outcomes.
Creating optimal butterfly habitat that incorporates soil disturbance for
thermoregulation sites and increased Penstemon and sneezeweed growth but
minimizes soil compaction and damage to Penstemon and the butterfly, may involve
a mosaic of light-moderately grazed to ungrazed meadow habitat to encourage the
widest array of habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity.
37
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Nonnative Vegetation
Nonnative vegetation was cited as a threat to the checkerspot butterfly in the 2001
proposed rule by out-competing and reducing or eliminating food plants for larvae
and nectar plants (Forest Service 1995). A 1993 Forest Service survey found that
approximately 737 ha (1,822 acres) in the vicinity of the Village of Cloudcroft had
infestations of noxious weeds (Forest Service 1999). On the Sacramento Ranger
District, nonnative plant species such as Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens),
musk thistle (Carduus nutans), bull thistle, Canada thistle, leafy spurge (Euphorbia
esula) and others occur. Nonnative plants can affect plant community structure by
reducing native plant production and changing habitat structure and composition.
For example, Russian knapweed produces compounds that suppress the growth of
other plant species, allowing it to form dense stands (Forest Service 1996).
On May 1, 2001, the Forest Service signed a record of decision to implement
management for noxious weed control. This management included using manual
methods and herbicides to treat all noxious weed acres on the Forest. Herbicides
will be applied using ground spray and backpack sprayers (i.e., hand spraying).
According to the Forest Service, no spraying or application of herbicides shall occur
within occupied Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly habitat (Forest
Service 2001 in litt). In addition, in occupied Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly habitat, manual hand pulling of noxious weeds will occur during the adult
flight period (i.e., from June 20 to July 31).
Insect Control
As stated in the 2001 proposed rule, large portions of the Sacramento Mountains
were treated in 1984 with carbaryl or Bacillus thuringensis to control an outbreak
of forest insects. Carbaryl is considered moderately to highly toxic and is lethal to
many non-target species. Bacillus thu ingensis can kill larval stage of many
insects, including butterflies (Cornell University 1998). However, it is unknown
what affect these treatments may have had on the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly from the 1984 application because no data on pre-treatment
exists. According to the Forest Service, there are no proposals to spray for insect
outbreaks currently or in the future.
r
B. Over-utilization for Commercial, Recreation, Science, or Education - Collecting
As previously stated, due to their conspicuous nature, butterflies in the genus
Euphydryas are widely collected and well studied, and are known to be restricted to
specific habitats (Ehrlich et al. 1975, Cullenward et al. 1979, Murphy and Weiss
1988). Listing has been known to increase the publicity and interest in a species’
38
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
rarity, and thus may directly increase the value and demand for specimens (Ehrlich
1989).
To protect the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly from collection, the
Forest Service issued a closure order throughout the region in 2000 that restricts
the collection of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly without a permit.
Pursuant to 36 C.F.R., § 261.58(s), the Forest Service specifically prohibited
“capture, collection, killing, possession, storage, or transportation of the Sacramento
Mountains checkerspot butterfly, and of life stages or parts thereof.” Violation of
these prohibitions is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 for an individual or
$10,000 for an entity other than an individual, or imprisonment for not more than
six months or both (16 U.S.C. § 551).
C. Disease or Predation
Spiders, pocket gophers, ants, and birds are documented predators for butterflies in
the genus Euphydryas (Ehrlich 1965, Brown & Ehrlich 1980, Moore 1987, 1989).
Although the proposed rule stated that wasps have been documented parasitizing
the butterfly, there are no indications at this time that parasites or predators might
be a limiting factor for the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly (USFWS
2001).
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
This species is not listed as threatened or endangered under the New Mexico
Wildlife Conservation Act because New Mexico Department of Game and Fish does
not list insects (Wildlife Conservation Act of New Mexico 1978). Private lands
constitute about 50% of the estimated range of the butterfly. The threats on private
land are currently unknown (USFWS 2001).
The Village of Cloudcroft already has in place Town Ordinances that implement
local zoning regulations related to open space that are expected to benefit the
butterfly. The Village of Cloudcroft’s Village Code document states that Greenbelt
Zones shall consist of open space with no structures or commercial signs allowed.
Further, there shall be no overnight parking or camping allowed within these areas.
The Village of Cloudcroft will implement greenbelts in any annexed lands.
The County of Otero has drafted an ordinance that would require green belt or open
space set-a-sides for new subdivision development within the County. In addition,
the County plans on implementing best management practices for new construction
on private lands within butterfly habitat. These best management practices will
ensure that butterfly habitat is maintained or enhanced for any new development
on private lands within the Otero County. Management practices may include, but
39
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
are not limited to, recommending butterfly surveys, maintaining current habitat if
present, and establishing native plants that are associated with checkerspot
butterfly habitat. In addition, Otero County has drafted, and intends to adopt, a
County Resolution to demonstrate commitment to conservation of the butterfly (See
Appendix B.).
Pursuant to section 7(a)(4) of the ESA, the Forest Service has coordinated with the
Service on seven conference opinions concerning the butterfly since 2001. Activities
discussed in the conference opinions include: utility projects, recreation projects,
land transfers, fire management, insecticide application, vegetation management,
and research on the butterfly. Conservation measures have included butterfly
surveys, host plant relocation, habitat flagging, revegetation and restoration efforts,
monitoring, compliance reporting, seasonal restrictions, minimizing habitat impact,
and/or herbicide application restrictions. All conference opinions concluded no
jeopardy to the species as well as recommending that a regional conservation
strategy be developed for the butterfly.
E. Other Natural Factors Affecting the Species
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot is also vulnerable to changes in climate.
Thus, the effect of climate change is discussed in detail below. It should be noted
that this does not imply that the species cannot survive natural events such as
drought. Instead, it is being addressed here because it was disclosed in the
proposed rule to list the species. Although the species evolved in an environment
subject to periodic atypical weather events, it is worth discussing because it could
be an additive risk to the species.
Climate Change
Climate change and associated atmospheric effects are predicted to alter the global
distribution of organisms (Parmesan 1999, Chapin et al. 2000, Thomas et al. 2004).
Since 1951, the average minimum winter temperature in the Northern Hemisphere
has risen 2.9ºC while the average summer maximum temperature has risen 1.3ºC
(Crozier 2003). Other mechanisms of global change, such as rising CO2 levels,
drought cycles, and increasing nitrogen deposition may also impact species of the
Southwest. Although most short-term changes in a species’ distribution are caused
by natural population fluctuations in response to environmental and land use
changes, small trends may produce substantive effects in the long term. Next to
land use, climate change is projected to have the second largest impact on
biodiversity (Chapin et al. 2000). Climate change has been and will continue to be a
long-term threat to the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly, and its effect
on the butterfly is unclear.
40
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Recently derived models have calculated extinction threats based on temperature
changes, rises in atmospheric CO2, geographical range size, biome type, and
species’ dispersal ability (Thomas et al. 2004). For endemic species with low
dispersal capabilities and small geographic ranges, like the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly, the probability of extinction within the next 50 years ranges
from 22%, based on minor temperature changes (0.8-1.7°C), to 52% with maximum
expected climate change (>2.0°C) (Thomas et al. 2004). Species that have good
dispersal and are not dependent on specific plants will not be affected as much as
species that have low dispersal patterns and narrow host plant distributions
(Warren et al. 2001, Crozier 2003). The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot
butterfly falls into the latter category.
Climate change is expected to be of particular importance at high latitude/altitude
biomes (McDonald & Brown 1992, Halpin 1997, Fleishman 1998). For herbivorous
insects, temperature directly affects development, survival, range and abundance
(Bale et al. 2002). The maintenance of optimal temperatures for high elevation
species may involve range shifts up the mountain to counteract warming trends.
Moving up in altitude to keep cool may eventually translate into contracted habitat
area as the mountain ends or as survival limits determined by minimum
temperatures or exposure set an upper boundary. Phenology for plants and insects
is determined by the interaction of temperature and photoperiod (Bale et al. 2002).
If range shifts of the butterfly, its host and nectar plants, and their pollinators do
not occur together, this may affect the butterfly by limiting the availability or
productivity of its food plants (Crozier 2003).
Another facet of climate change that could impact the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly is the multidecadal drought cycle (McCabe et al. 2004).
Drought is known to cause a decrease in the population sizes of some butterfly
species (Ehrlich et al. 1980) and cause population extinctions (Murphy & Weiss
1988, Thomas et al. 1996, Boughton 1999). Other than inducing larval death by
dessication, drought conditions may reduce growth and nutritional content of the
host plants, which could stunt the butterfly’s growth and prohibit the completion of
its life cycle. For example, drought in California between 1975-77 is associated with
the extinction of several E. editha populations and the decline of E. chalcedona
populations, although a few montane populations of Euphydryas remained stable or
experienced population increases from local orographic effects (Ehrlich et al. 1980).
Negatively affected populations failed to survive due to: the lack of host plant
germination, causing low host plant densities; drought stress on the available host
plants, leading to rapid senescence before oviposition could occur; intraspecific
competition for the few surviving host plants; and the resulting inability of larvae to
become large enough to enter diapause (Ehrlich et al. 1980). A different study
suggests that two populations of the Bay Checkerspot, E. e. bayensis, became
extinct due to a combination of habitat loss and precipitation fluctuations
(McLaughlin et al. 2002). Models have not ruled out the chance of a multi-decadal
41
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
drought, occurring in a 50-80 year cycle and related to variations in the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation, co-occurring with a smaller-scale Pacific Decadal
Oscillation, which regulates the El Nino Southern Oscillation pattern (McCabe et
al. 2004). Should these two cycles amplify one another a megadrought may result,
which could pose serious problems for the maintenance of the butterfly’s host plants
and, consequently, the butterfly.
Current drought conditions in New Mexico are already impacting the local climates.
Recently, the Sacramento Mountains have experienced higher average winter
temperatures resulting in lower snow accumulation (D. Salas pers. comm. 2004).
Warmer temperatures and the loss of precipitation have created drier soils in the
spring and decreased spring runoff from melting snow (D. Salas pers. comm. 2004).
Specific temperature and moisture impacts upon the Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly, the plants P. neomexicanus, V. edulis, and H. hoopesii, and
their pollinators are presently unknown. However, reduced quantity and duration
of spring soil moisture may decrease water availability to spring plants and
diapausing larvae. Furthermore, earlier increased spring temperatures could alter
reproductive phenologies that could diminish butterfly populations.
Climate change can affect the resilience of an ecosystem, by weakening its ability to
return to its original state or switch to a new set of conditions (Scheffer et al. 2001).
Butterflies are highly sensitive to both short- and long-term changing abiotic
conditions and have been deemed ‘model systems for understanding and predicting
climate change’ (Hellman 2002). Future climates that significantly impact butterfly
and host plant populations in the Sacramento Mountains may force the butterfly to
adapt to a novel host before becoming extinct. Changes in host preference have
occurred in this genus, usually as a result of migration followed by local evolution
(Radtkey & Singer 1995, Thomas et al 1996). The uncertainty of the short-term and
long-term response of the Sacramento Mountains butterfly to predicted climate
change creates a situation that local management is incapable of addressing.
42
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
IV. CONSERVATION STRATEGY
This section describes the cooperators involved and specifies the approaches and
strategies for conserving the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. These
approaches and strategies are based on principles of conservation biology as well as
our knowledge of the biology and ecology of the species, providing a long-term
approach to the protection and management of the butterfly. Conservation biology
is defined as an integrative approach to the maintenance of biodiversity that uses
appropriate principles and experiences from basic biological fields such as genetics
and ecology; from natural resource management fields such as wildlife
management; and from social sciences such as anthropology, sociology, philosophy,
and economics (Meffe et al. 1997). Conservation measures are a complex mix of
biological, economic, and humanistic endeavors. The conservation measures below
are a set of tools and approaches that require implementation to become useful and
appropriate.
A. Cooperators
Below are the various cooperators that joined together to formulate this
Conservation Plan. These entities compiled information, developed conservation
measures, and recommended actions. The conservation of the butterfly will require
continued active participation by these partners. Each of these cooperators will
play a crucial role in the implementation of the Conservation Plan, as outlined
below.
Village of Cloudcroft
The Village of Cloudcroft, founded in 1898, is a small mountain village of
approximately 724 residents located within the Sacramento Mountains. Cloudcroft
is approximately 9,000 ft (2,750 m) in elevation and is located 26 km (16 mi) from
Alamogordo, New Mexico. The Village population has been essentially stable over
the past several decades with a slight decline in population over the past four years.
The local economy is primarily dependent upon tourism as opposed to the industry-based
economy (i.e., resource extraction such as timber) of the past. Today, outdoor
recreational activities include camping, hiking, hunting, mountain biking, off-highway
vehicle-riding, skiing, and snowmobiling.
Otero County
Otero County lies in south-central New Mexico extending to the Texas border.
Otero County is a co-lead with the Forest Service to identify problems and
implement restoration on public lands at the local level. The County role includes
acting as a co-convener of the collaborative process, providing socio-economic
43
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
information, facilitating community outreach, and incorporating knowledge and
skill from colleges and universities to provide scientific assessments.
Lincoln National Forest
The Sacramento Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest, headquartered in
Cloudcroft, manages 180,168 ha (450,419 ac) of the Sacramento Mountains. The
Sacramento Mountains are characterized as high elevational mixed-conifer forests
and meadows. The Lincoln National Forest is a mecca for outdoor activities that
attracts people from communities adjacent to the forest as well as Texas and other
areas. Recreational opportunities include camping, hunting, hiking, OHV-use,
skiing, star-gazing, and wildlife viewing. Several miles of trails and old railroad
grades are used by hikers, mountain bikers, OHVs, and cross-country skiers. No
designated wilderness areas occur on the Sacramento Ranger District. The mission
of the Forest Service is “caring for the land and serving people.”
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The USFWS is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting
and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit
of the American people. The USFWS manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife
Refuge System, which encompasses 544 national wildlife refuges, thousands of
small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 69 national
fish hatcheries, 63 fish and wildlife management offices and 81 ecological services
field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the
Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally
significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and
helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the
Federal Assistance program, which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in
excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to State fish and wildlife agencies.
The mission of the USFWS is: “working with others to conserve, protect and
enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.”
B. Conservation Actions
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly was proposed for listing because
of a variety of factors, the primary reason being loss and degradation of habitat.
However, many of these factors have been curtailed since the proposed rule was
published. Furthermore, there are continuing commitments to the long-term
44
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
protection and survival of the species as stated below. Thus, the actions outlined
below steer a course for what will be effective conservation (both short- and long-term)
of the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. This outline categorizes
conservation actions into four types:
1. Protect and manage occupied and unoccupied Sacramento Mountains
checkerspot butterfly habitat on public lands.
2. Manage habitat and promote conservation, through education and outreach,
of Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly on non-Federal and other
private lands.
3. Conduct research to fill information gaps and inform management.
4. Provide adequate regulatory protection.
C. Funding
Below is a summary of funding commitments by the involved parties. Funding is
necessary for surveys, research, monitoring, habitat enhancement, public outreach,
and further implementation of this Plan.
Village of Cloudcroft
The Village of Cloudcroft is dedicated to public outreach and education programs to
promote conservation of the butterfly. The Village will encourage interested private
citizens and organizations to attend meetings and participate voluntarily. The
Village will work with private landowners (in cooperation with the County) to
educate landowners about butterfly conservation. This includes, but is not limited
to, restoration of areas and planting butterfly food and larval host plants, and
communication with landowners through the local newspaper and Village Council
Workshops. Outreach and educational programs are planned for the local
community, within the Village of Cloudcroft and the County. The Village of
Cloudcroft will share in the cost of public outreach and education.
Otero County
Through the CPR program, Otero County is expected to contribute $100,000
towards threatened and endangered species and the butterfly. Specifically, the
County has allocated this funding in the category of science and monitoring. In
addition, the USFWS and Otero County are drafting a cooperative agreement that
45
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
would allocate funds for on-going research on the effects of grazing on the butterfly
and its habitat in 2005-2006.
Forest Service
Estimated costs incurred by the Forest Service associated with the butterfly efforts
since 2001 have been approximately $100,000. The Forest Service will continue to
allocate resources towards coordination with the USFWS on butterfly conservation.
The Forest Service has conducted a biological study of the butterfly between 1999-
2003 which was completed at a cost of $30,000. The Forest Service will continue to
fund surveys and monitoring activities. In addition, the Lincoln National Forest
will receive $750,000 from the USDA to conduct forest restoration and community
protection projects on the forest that will benefit the butterfly.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The USFWS has procured $13,000 for an initial research study of the effects of
grazing on the checkerspot butterfly. Using maps of occupied butterfly habitat
prepared by the Forest Service, this study will collect field data over the summer of
2005 in three canyons that will be grazed by May of 2005. Ecological variables of
these canyons will be compared to baseline variables sampled in 2004 prior to the
introduction of grazing. At each canyon, data concerning adult and larval butterfly
demographics, host and nectar plants, percent ground cover, soil characteristics,
topography, and climate will be recorded. In particular, butterfly larval and adult
densities and grazing densities will be compared to formulate adaptive grazing
regimes that will benefit the butterfly.
The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is currently a priority for the
USFWS’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. This program has been working
diligently with the Forest Service and non-Federal entities regarding conservation
efforts related to the butterfly. For example, the Forest Service gathered P.
neomexicanus seeds from sites on the Lincoln National Forest. During 2003 and
2004, the Plant Materials Center in Los Lunas, New Mexico, in cooperation with
the National Resource Conservation Service, cleaned, graded, and planted P.
neomexicanus seed. The Otero County Chapter of the Native Plant Society of New
Mexico and the Otero County Extension Office (Master Gardener Program) have
expressed interest in being “foster parents” for Penstemon plants until they are
needed for community projects. In addition, these entities would like to be
advocates in the community for the butterfly and its larval and nectar plants, as
46
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
well as being “on-call” to assist with relocating and transplanting plants during
Forest Service activities.
The USFWS will continue to seek resources and funding for research, monitoring,
and surveys. In addition, the USFWS will continue to allocate resources towards
coordination with the partners on butterfly conservation.
D. Adaptive Management and Monitoring
Adaptive management is the process in which information is gained from
monitoring and research and is then used to modify future management practices.
In short, adaptive management is a feedback loop; if conditions deviate
substantially from predictions, management activities are adjusted to achieve the
desired outcomes. Thus, adaptive management is primarily dependent upon
reliable data from monitoring and research results. Adaptive management is a
crucial element of any conservation strategy that will be accomplished through
development of a monitoring program, research, and evaluation.
Monitoring is a key component of adaptive management and a needed activity for
implementation